MAHAN v. PEREZ (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Chauncey M. Mahan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional violations related to a dispute over the ownership of audio recordings in Mahan's possession. 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. In re Phenylpropanolamine ( PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Mahan's action because Mahan failed to comply with the district court's order to omit any claims of false arrest from the second amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed for failure to comply with the district court's orders).

Contrary to Mahan's contention, the district court properly determined that, despite the omission of the word “arrest” from the second amended complaint, Mahan alleged that he had been subjected to an improper de facto arrest.

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).

Mahan's motion for judicial notice and to compel discovery (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied.

AFFIRMED.