Kathy Tripp v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KATHY TRIPP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-17313
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01400-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 21, 2012***
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kathy Tripp appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits
FILED
MAR 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17313 2
for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action after
Tripp informed the court that she would not comply with the court’s orders to
provide a confidential letter to the defendant, even if would result in the dismissal
of her case. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to
comply with a court order or failure to prosecute).
We do not consider Tripp’s contentions concerning the district court’s order
denying her motion for default judgment. See Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493,
497-98 (9th Cir. 1984) (interlocutory orders are not appealable after dismissal for
failure to prosecute). Nor do we consider Tripp’s contentions regarding the merits
of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits raised for the first time
on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --