WARNE v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (2020)

MEMORANDUM ***

Joel Jennings Warne appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as a discovery sanction his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Warne’s action because Warne failed to appear for his scheduled in-person deposition despite multiple warnings that his failure to appear would result in dismissal. See id. at 1056-57 (factors to be considered before dismissing under Rule 37(b)).

We reject as without merit Warne’s contentions regarding judicial bias or misconduct, or the district court’s discovery-related rulings.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.