Alfred Arthur Sandoval v. D. BARNEBURG, Sergeant;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. BARNEBURG, Sergeant; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15024
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00865-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alfred Arthur Sandoval appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15024 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik
v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Sandoval’s
action without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order to allege
unrelated claims in separate complaints and identify which actions of the
individual defendants violated his rights with regard to each claim. See id. at 1260-
63 (discussing factors to consider when determining whether dismissal for failure
to comply with a court order was an abuse of discretion).
Sandoval’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --