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)
14-15517•CLARENCE B. HICKMAN, Sr. v. County of Butte;
14-15517Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 1, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE B. HICKMAN, Sr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF BUTTE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15517
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02156-KJM-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Clarence B. Hickman, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. We review the
dismissal for an abuse of discretion, Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671,
FILED
DEC 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 --
674 (9th Cir. 1981), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hickman’s action
following Hickman’s failure to file an appropriate amendment, because the district
court specifically warned Hickman that his action could be dismissed if he failed to
file a compliant amended complaint. See id. at 673-74 (a complaint which fails to
comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed under Rule 41(b)); see also Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing factors relevant for
failure to comply with court order and explaining that, although dismissal is a
harsh penalty, district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a
“definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of
judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors”
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
14-15517 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.