The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-55447•ROYAL PORTER McHENRY v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department;
08-55447Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApr 21, 2010
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROYAL PORTER McHENRY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55447
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07338-R-JWJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Royal Porter McHenry, an inmate in Los Angeles County Jail, appeals pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291
F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action
because McHenry failed to comply with the district court’s order requiring him to
file an amended complaint within a specified time period. See id. at 642–43
(discussing factors a court must weigh to determine whether to dismiss a claim for
failure to comply with a court order). Further, McHenry asked the district court to
dismiss this action. To the extent McHenry sought to stand on the original
complaint, we agree with the magistrate judge’s order of December 4, 2007, that
the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to put defendants on notice of a claim
against them.
We do not consider issues not properly raised before the district court. See
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
McHenry’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.