REGINALD B. DeJOHNETTE v. SUZAN HUBBARD, Warden;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
REGINALD B. DeJOHNETTE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUZAN HUBBARD, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17669
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05604-MMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reginald B. DeJohnette, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to file a second
amended complaint and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-17669 2
comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d
1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of extension of time under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 1999)
(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeJohnette’s
motion for an extension of time and dismissing the action without prejudice
because DeJohnette failed to establish good cause for granting an extension, and at
least three out of five factors weighed in favor of dismissal for failure to comply
with the court’s order requiring submission of an amended complaint. See
Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1258-60 (discussing the good cause requirement of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(b)(1)); Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 (factors for determining whether to
dismiss for failure to comply with a court order).
DeJohnette’s contentions concerning the dismissal of his original complaint
are unpersuasive.
DeJohnette’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening
brief, is denied.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-17669 3
DeJohnette’s motion to exceed the page limit, submitted on November 2,
2011, is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --