United States v. 2020-02-26 | 18-56018 | LUIS OSOLLO V. LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

18-56018United States Court Of Appeals For The 9th Circuit26.02.2020

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS OSOLLO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56018

D.C. No.
2:16-cv-03045-SJO-SHK

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2020
**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Osollo appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights
action arising from Los Angeles Unified School District’s (“LAUSD”) termination
of his employment as substitute high school teacher and subsequent proceedings to
suspend his California teacher’s credential. The district court dismissed the action

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

FEB 26 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and alternatively for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). We review the district court’s decision
whether to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) for an abuse of discretion. Tillman v.
Tillman, 825 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s
judgment.
In light of Osollo’s repeated failure to comply with the district court’s orders
to file a complaint that included a short and plain statement of claims, as required
by Rule 8(a), despite the fact that he is an attorney, the district court properly
exercised its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) (providing for dismissal when a plaintiff fails to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,
642 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth factors to be weighed).
AFFIRMED.

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.