Joe Cabello, an individual person v. City of Phoenix;

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).
09-16217
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOE CABELLO, an individual person,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16217
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01521-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Joe Cabello appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file
an amended complaint after the district court dismissed his complaint with leave to
FILED
JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16217 2
amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 1999). We
affirm.
The district court gave Cabello notice of the insufficiencies of his complaint,
dismissed it with leave to amend, and provided Cabello with ample opportunity to
submit an amended complaint, but Cabello failed to do so. We affirm the district
court’s dismissal of the action. See id. at 992 (affirming dismissal of action
following plaintiff’s failure to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so,
where the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s management of
its docket, and avoiding prejudice to defendants favored dismissal).
Cabello’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --