DANA GRAY, AKA Dana Sue Gray v. V. ROMERO, Dr.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANA GRAY, AKA Dana Sue Gray,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
V. ROMERO, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16787
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01473-DAD-
GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dana Gray, AKA Dana Sue Gray, appeals pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court
order her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out
of her medical treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
* 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).
FILED
MAY 30 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16787
review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th
Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gray’s action
after Gray failed to comply with the district court’s orders directing her to cease
filing frivolous motions and other requests. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a
case for failure to comply with a court order and stating that a district court’s
dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it
“committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Gray’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 30) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --