Michael Denton v. PASTOR, Sheriff;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DENTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PASTOR, Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PATTI JACKSON; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-35489
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05314-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Michael Denton, a Washington state prisoner, appeals from the district
* 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
SEP 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35489
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and
Fourteenth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or pursuant to local rules.
Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999); Ghazali v. Moran, 46
F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Denton’s action
because Denton failed to comply with court orders and local rules governing
pretrial procedure, and failed to attend the pretrial conference or explain his
absence, despite being given an opportunity to do so. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors for determining whether
an action should be dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with a court
order); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We
have repeatedly upheld the imposition of the sanction of dismissal for failure to
comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules and court orders.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal
or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --