Arlene D. Rowland v. Securities

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).
LBS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARLENE D. ROWLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION (SEC); NASD, INC.;
NASD DISPUTE RESOLUTION, INC.;
NASD DEPARTMENT OF
ENFORCEMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-56854
D.C. No. CV-06-07434-GPS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

LBS/Research 07-56854 2
Arlene D. Rowland appeals pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing
her action with prejudice for failure to comply with a prior court order and denying
her motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for abuse of discretion both the dismissal of a complaint for failure to
comply with an order and the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Edwards v.
Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004); Jeff. D. v. Kempthorne, 365
F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rowland’s
action for failure to follow a court order, where the court previously gave Rowland
twenty days leave to amend and provided a detailed explanation of the defects in
the complaint, yet Rowland did not submit an amended complaint, seek a
continuance, or communicate that she did not intend to submit an amended
complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(discussing factors to be considered before dismissing for failure to comply with a
court order).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Rowland’s
motion for reconsideration because she did not demonstrate that her failure to
comply with the court’s amendment deadline was due to “excusable neglect” or
“surprise.” See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (procedural

-- 2 of 3 --

LBS/Research 07-56854 3
rules in civil litigation should not be interpreted to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel); Franchise Holding II, LLC. v. Huntington Rests. Group,
Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (delay due to factors within the reasonable
control of the movant does not constitute “excusable neglect”).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action for failure to
follow a court order, we do not consider Rowland’s contentions regarding the
district court’s previous dismissal order. See Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1063.
Rowland’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --