The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-15905•Michael Hernandez Gonzalez v. H. PEREZ; M. MIMS, Sheriff of Fresno County at Fresno County Jail; SHARP, Officer
22-15905Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 18, 2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
H. PEREZ; M. MIMS, Sheriff of Fresno
County at Fresno County Jail; SHARP,
Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15905
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01447-DAD-BAK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Hernandez Gonzalez appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and failure to protect while
* 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
AUG 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-15905
Gonzalez was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291.
We review for abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th
Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gonzalez’s
action because, despite multiple, explicit warnings, Gonzalez failed to comply with
orders instructing him to cease filing duplicative and baseless motions. See id. at
642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b) 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 absent “a definite and firm conviction”
that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.