Jeffrey FRIEND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HEGARTY, National Postal Mailhandlers Union; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: April 09, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Friend, Pro Se Bruce Lerner, Esquire, Attorney, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Washington, DC, Christopher E. Platten, Esquire, Attorney, Wylie, McBride, Platten & Jenner, San Jose, CA, for Defendants - Appellees John Hegarty, National Postal Mail Handlers Union James A. Scharf, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ - Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Meghan Brennan Andrew H. Baker, Attorney, Lorrie Elizabeth Bradley, Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, Oakland, CA, for Defendant - Appellee National Postal Mail Handlers Union Local 302
Jeffrey Friend appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that National Postal Mailhandlers Union Local 302 breached the duty of fair representation and its alleged contract with Friend in connection with the arbitration hearing regarding Friend’s termination by the United States Postal Service. 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 Friend’s action because Friend failed to oppose Local 302’s motion to dismiss despite the district court’s repeated warnings to do so. See id. at 1260–61 (setting forth the five factors to be weighed when considering dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and stating that the district court is not required to make explicit findings; rather, this court may review the record independently).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding pro se appellant abandoned issues not argued in his opening brief).
Friend’s emergency motion asking the court to consider supplemental material related to the merits of his case (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.
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.