Michael Shawn Rochester v. Linda Rowe, Md;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MICHAEL SHAWN ROCHESTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LINDA ROWE, MD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17772
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04747-RS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Shawn Rochester appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
FILED
MAR 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17772 2
of discretion. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action
without prejudice after it warned Rochester that failure to file an amended
complaint could result in dismissal, and granted an extension of time to comply
with its order. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an
action for lack of prosecution and explaining that “[a] relatively brief period of
delay is sufficient to justify” a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute).
We do not consider Rochester’s contentions concerning the district court’s
order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. See id. at 497-98 (interlocutory
orders are not appealable after dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --