SHANNON v. IKEGBU (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-28No. No. 20-16133

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with a court order.

Mychael Tyrone Shannon, a California state prisoner, appealed a federal district court's dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Shannon's case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to follow a court order. Shannon had been directed to clarify whether he intended to proceed with certain claims or submit an amended complaint, and he was explicitly warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal. Despite this warning, Shannon did not respond to the court's directive. The appellate court examined whether the district court abused its discretion in entering the dismissal and found no such abuse.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) was an abuse of discretion
Effect of a party's failure to follow explicit court directives regarding claim selection or amended pleadings
Standard for reviewing dismissals based on noncompliance with court orders

Procedural posture

Shannon appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Mychael Tyrone Shannon appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district courts dismissal for failure to comply

with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Shannons action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Shannon failed to advise the district court as to whether he was electing to proceed with his cognizable claims or file an amended complaint, despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 640, 642-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order; this court may review the record independently to determine if the district court abused its discretion).

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.