Gary William Hallford v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Each Individual Member

08-16322Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit14 dic 2009

Testo completo

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY WILLIAM HALLFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Each Individual Member,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-16322
D.C. No. 2:06-CV-01081-GEB-
GGH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Gary William Hallford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-16322 2
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th
Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hallford’s action
for failure to comply with a court order where the district court described the
inadequacies of Hallford’s complaint, warned him that failure to file a second
amended complaint would result in dismissal, and gave him ample time to amend.
See id. at 1260-62; Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir.
2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum –
either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do
so – is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”).
Hallford’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Hallford’s “Motion For Service Upon Particular Defendants” is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.