Andrew Strick v. Doug Pitts;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW STRICK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOUG PITTS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35918
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05110-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Former Washington state prisoner Andrew Strick appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations arising from his arrest and subsequent incarceration for
violations of his community custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
AUG 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute,
Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Strick’s action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute in light of Strick’s failure to participate in
the proceedings, including his failure to respond to defendants’ proposed joint
status report and the district court’s order to show cause why the action should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing factors to
guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting dismissal will be
disturbed only if there is “a definite and firm conviction that the court below
committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
12-35918 2

-- 2 of 2 --