Edwin Marrero v. J. Zaragoza, S.i.s.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN MARRERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. ZARAGOZA, S.I.S.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-17433
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00509-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Edwin Marrero appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to comply
with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
* 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).
FILED
DEC 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-17433
an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action
without prejudice because 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 or notice of Marrero’s willingness to proceed on the one claim
found cognizable by the court. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for
determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh
penalty, the 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)).
We reject Marrero’s contention concerning any alleged violation of the
prison mailbox rule.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --