Pierre Genevier v. Eduardo Aguirre;

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).
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PIERRE GENEVIER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EDUARDO AGUIRRE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-56730
D.C. No. CV-05-07517-AG
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Pierre Genevier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his civil rights action alleging that the defendants wrongfully denied him various
FILED
MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 07-56730 2
benefits that he was entitled to as a refugee, and other claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
(9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after
Genevier repeatedly failed to file an amended complaint that complied with the
district court’s previous orders and ignored numerous warnings that failure to do so
would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-61 (discussing factors to be considered
before dismissing under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order).
Genevier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Genevier’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --