STRIBLING v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Aaron Stribling, AKA Aaron Lamont Stribling, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various 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 a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Stribling’s action because Stribling failed to file an amended complaint or to indicate that he intended to stand on the original complaint. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (setting forth the five factors to be weighed when considering dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, and stating the district court is not required to make explicit findings, rather we may review the record independently).

AFFIRMED.