Kevin Miller v. City of Sacramento;

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). Accordingly, Miller’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-18045
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00765-GEB-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal constitutional and state law violations in
connection with his arrest for sexual battery of a minor. We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-18045 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v.
Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with
court order and failure to prosecute); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.
1995) (dismissal under local rules). We affirm.
We construe the judgment as a dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply
with local rules and court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). So
construed, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miller’s
action because Miller failed to file a written opposition to defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, despite having received several extensions of time to do so
and a warning that such failure could result in dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d
at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss a claim
for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at
53 (explaining that a court must weigh the same five factors to determine whether
dismissal for failure to follow a local rule was an abuse of discretion).
Miller’s contention concerning the magistrate judge’s alleged bias is
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --