William Michael Kral v. Benton County, a Washington municipal corporation

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM MICHAEL KRAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BENTON COUNTY, a Washington
municipal corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-35153
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-05014-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
William Michael Kral appeals pro se from the district court’s partial
summary judgment and judgment dismissing his action as a sanction for failure to
comply with discovery orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-35153 2
review de novo partial summary judgment, Charles Schwab & Co. v. Debickero,
593 F.3d 916, 918 (9th Cir. 2010), and review for an abuse of discretion a
dismissal for violation of court orders, Allen v. Bayer Corp. (In re
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.
2006). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for
Kral’s violation of discovery orders after it considered the relevant factors. See In
re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d at 1226-29, 1233
(discussing factors that courts must consider in deciding whether to dismiss an
action for failure to comply with a court order, and noting that “‘the faults and
defaults of the attorney may be imputed to, and their consequences visited upon,
his or her client’” (citation omitted)).
We do not address the district court’s partial summary judgment because
Kral did not specifically and distinctly argue the issues in his opening brief. See
Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217
(9th Cir. 1997) (“‘We review only issues which are argued specifically and
distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an
appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .’” (citation omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-35153 3
Kral’s remaining contentions, including those concerning ineffective
assistance of counsel, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --