THOMAS EDWARD KING, Jr. v. E. Valenzuela;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS EDWARD KING, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
E. VALENZUELA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55905
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02788-CAS-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Edward King, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for failure to prosecute his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and
state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55905
affirm.
King failed to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his action for failure
to prosecute, and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh,
194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party
in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d
971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an
appellant . . . . ”).
Even if King had not waived his challenge, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing King’s action for failure to prosecute because King failed
to file an amended complaint despite receiving an extension of time to do so and
being warned of the consequences of failing to file it. 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).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --