William James Mathew Wallace Ii v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JAMES MATHEW WALLACE
II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55519
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01320-FMO-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges
California state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II appeals pro se
from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
comply with a court order. 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
FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55519
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 Wallace’s action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Wallace failed to comply
with the district court’s order to amend his in forma pauperis application despite
being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43
(discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)
for failure to comply with a court order).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Wallace’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --