MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II appeals pro se from the district courts 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 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 Wallaces action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Wallace failed to comply with the district courts 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).
Wallaces motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.
AFFIRMED.