Ludmila Boiko v. Santa Cruz County

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUDMILA BOIKO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16777

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-03324-LHK

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Ludmila Boiko appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
action alleging federal claims arising from the mistreatment of her adult daughter.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495

*
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

MAR 6 2020

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

2 18-16777
(9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Boiko’s action
because Boiko failed to file an amended complaint even after receiving an
extension of time. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.
2002) (discussing the five factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788
(9th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews the record independently if the district court
does not make explicit findings regarding each of the factors).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.