United States v. 2020-06-05 | 19-55476 | KOFI OBENG-AMPONSAH V. TIM GENOVESE | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KOFI OBENG-AMPONSAH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TIM GENOVESE, as an individual; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55476

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01054-R-AFM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
**

Submitted June 2, 2020
***

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Kofi Obeng-Amponsah appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging race discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and
other federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The judgment on appeal was entered by District Judge Manuel L.
Real, who passed away prior to the notice of appeal being filed.

***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JUN 5 2020

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

2 19-55476
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
reverse and remand.
The district court sua sponte dismissed Obeng-Amponsah’s action as a
sanction eight days after the amended complaint was due. However, the district
court failed to consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal with prejudice and
failed to warn Obeng-Amponsah that the action would be dismissed if he failed to
comply with the court’s order. See id. at 1260 (dismissal with prejudice under
Rule 41(b) “is a harsh penalty and ... should only be imposed in extreme
circumstances”); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The
district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally
dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”); see
also Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The district judge has
an obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.”) Accordingly, we
reverse the judgment and remand with instructions to reinstate the action and
accept Obeng-Amponsah’s second amended complaint for filing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.