Andy Nguyen v. LOUIS DEJOY, United States Postmaster General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDY NGUYEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOUIS DEJOY, United States Postmaster
General,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-17059
D.C. No. 5:21-cv-02851-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge**, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023***
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Andy Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Nguyen’s requests for a
hearing, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.
FILED
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-17059
Labor Code. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend
the complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Nguyen’s action
because Nguyen failed to file an amended complaint despite being warned that
failure to do so would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district court
may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-62 (setting forth factors for
determining whether an action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a
court order and noting that this court may review the record independently to
determine if the district court abused its discretion).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nguyen’s motion
for relief from judgment because Nguyen failed to demonstrate any basis for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
We reject as without merit Nguyen’s contention that the district court should
have conducted a case management conference before dismissing his action.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-17059
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --