United States v. 2020-07-17 | 18-17312 | NICHOLAS PATRICK V. REYNAGA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS PATRICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

REYNAGA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

F. FELECIANO; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 18-17312

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*
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

JUL 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-17312
Former California state prisoner Nicholas Patrick appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply
with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002)
(failure to comply with court order); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th
Cir. 1996) (failure to prosecute). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Patrick’s action
after Patrick failed to comply with the district court’s order to respond to or oppose
defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d. at 642 (discussing
factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute or
failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th
Cir. 1992) (“[I]t is not required that the district court make explicit findings in
order to show that it has considered these factors . . . we may review the record
independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion”).
AFFIRMED.