DAVID T. LASHGARI and MARJE H. LASHGARI v. WILLIAM J. BRATTON, LAPD, Chief;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID T. LASHGARI and MARJE H.
LASHGARI,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WILLIAM J. BRATTON, LAPD, Chief;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN ERDERT; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 09-56289
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-03322-SJO-OP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-56289 2
David T. Lashgari and Marje H. Lashgari appeal pro se from the district
court’s orders dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute and
denying their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum
Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (reconsideration); Pagtalunan
v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to prosecute). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for
failure to prosecute after it warned the Lashgaris that noncompliance with its order
to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal and it granted an extension
of time to comply, and the Lashgaris failed to amend their complaint for
approximately six months after the deadline for doing so. See Pagtalunan, 291
F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors that district courts must consider before
dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b))
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for
reconsideration because the Lashgaris failed to provide a sufficient basis for
reconsideration. See United Nat’l Ins. Co., 555 F.3d at 780 (listing bases for
reconsideration).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-56289 3
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not
consider the Lashgaris’ challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See
Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).
The Lashgaris’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --