Ivy Anderson; v. City of Davis;

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).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVY ANDERSON; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF DAVIS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17112
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02321-LKK-
GGH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ivy Anderson and David Johnson appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as a sanction for failure to
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PDM/Research 08-17112 2
comply with the district court’s discovery orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v.
Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after
weighing the relevant factors. See id. at 1057 (listing factors to consider in
determining whether to dismiss an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37). Appellants
failed to comply with discovery orders despite the district court’s warnings that
non-compliance could result in dismissal.
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellants’ motion filed on September 16, 2009 is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --