MILLER v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY LHM ACJ (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Chasmind David Miller appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging contractual violations arising out of the purchase of an automobile and an insurance policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for failure to prosecute); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miller's action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Miller failed to communicate with defense counsel in a timely manner, made misrepresentations to the court regarding discovery, and took no action to rectify discovery and scheduling issues, despite being warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on Miller's opposed motion for summary judgment or motion to compel while discovery was ongoing. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and noting a district court's “considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice”).

We reject as meritless Miller's contentions that the district judge was prejudiced or biased.

To the extent Miller's letter filing (Docket Entry No. 15) seeks relief, any request is denied.

AFFIRMED.