United States v. 2020-07-17 | 19-55115 | KEVIN JONES V. LAC WARDEN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN WALKER JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAC WARDEN, (CDCR); et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55115

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-08021-AG-SHK

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Kevin Walker Jones appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for

*
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

JUL 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55115
failure to prosecute. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jones’s action
because Jones failed to file an amended complaint identifying the defendants by
name after being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal and being
provided an opportunity to conduct discovery. See id. (discussing factors to be
considered before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute); see also Wakefield
v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that when the
identities of alleged defendants are not known before the filing of a complaint, the
plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown
defendants).
To the extent Jones challenges the district court’s screening order, we do not
consider challenges to interlocutory orders following a dismissal for failure to
prosecute. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally
appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to
prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is the result of
negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

3 19-55115
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.