CHAIDEZ v. HUBBARD (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Roberto Chaidez appeals pro se from the district court's 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 dismissal for failure to comply with court orders. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chaidez's action because Chaidez failed to file an amended complaint that complied with the district court's instructions to give a short and clear description of the wrongful conduct and each defendant's involvement. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed for failure to comply with the district court's orders; where the district court does not make explicit findings concerning these factors, we “review the record independently to determine if [it] has abused its discretion”).

We reject as without merit Chaidez's contentions that the district court lacked authority to screen his complaint and erred by imposing a page limit on Chaidez's second amended complaint.

We reject as unsupported by the record Chaidez's contention concerning bias of the district court.

AFFIRMED.