HENDRIX v. State of Nevada; et al., Defendants. (2019)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jamal Damon HENDRIX, aka Jamar Hendrix, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Romeo ARANAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees, State of Nevada; et al., Defendants.
Decided: December 17, 2019
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jamal Damon Hendrix, Pro Se D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, Frank Anthony Toddre, II, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV - Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Jamal Damon Hendrix AKA Jamar Hendrix, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as a sanction for failure to attend a settlement conference. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hendrix’s action. Hendrix failed to attend a settlement conference, and after warning Hendrix it was considering a dismissal sanction, the district court considered written submissions, held a hearing, and found that Hendrix’s reasons for failure to attend were not credible. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We have repeatedly upheld the imposition of the sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules and court orders.”).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.