Travis Ray Thompson v. Alvarez;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRAVIS RAY THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALVAREZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-17034
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00572-AWI-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Travis Ray Thompson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations occurring at three different prisons against numerous
prison officials and staff over a seven-year period. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
DEC 04 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 3 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for
failure to comply with court orders. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th
Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Thompson’s
action because, despite its warnings, Thompson repeatedly failed to comply with
the district court’s orders to comply with the pleading and joinder requirements
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20. See id. at 642 (discussing
the five factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply
with a court order).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s
motion for appointment of counsel because Thompson did not demonstrate
exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.
2009) (setting forth the standard of review and explaining exceptional
circumstances requirement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s motion
for preliminary injunction to transfer him into federal custody because the district
court lacked authority to issue an injunction directed at a non-party. See Zenith
Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (concluding
that it was error to enter an injunction against a non-party); Alliance for the Wild
2 13-17034

-- 2 of 3 --

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review). Thompson did not demonstrate that the limited exception to this rule,
which allows injunctions to bind non-parties who are “in active concert or
participation” with the parties, applied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C).
In light of our conclusion regarding the district court’s dismissal for failure
to comply with court orders, we do not consider Thompson’s contentions
concerning the merits of his case.
We reject Thompson’s arguments relating to judicial bias.
Thompson’s motion to add newly discovered evidence to the record on
appeal, filed on December 4, 2013, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17034

-- 3 of 3 --