Raul Ernest Alonso-Prieto v. B. PIERCE, Kern County Sheriff Deputy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL ERNEST ALONSO-PRIETO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. PIERCE, Kern County Sheriff Deputy,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-17557
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00024-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 20, 2016***
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Raul Ernest Alonso-Prieto, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens
FILED
JAN 27 2016
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 parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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 with prejudice
Alonso-Prieto’s action for failure to prosecute in light of Alonso-Prieto’s failure to
file a pretrial statement, even after the district court warned him that his action
would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not file a pretrial statement. See
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five
factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute); 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 absent “a definite and
firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Alonso-Prieto’s contention that he failed to prosecute
because he is blind is unsupported by the record.
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Alonso-Prieto’s action for
failure to prosecute, we do not consider Alonso-Prieto’s challenges to the district
court’s interlocutory orders. See Al–Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (“[I]nterlocutory
orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a
14-17557 2

-- 2 of 3 --

dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]”).
AFFIRMED.
14-17557 3

-- 3 of 3 --