Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

William James Mathew WALLACE II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55519

Decided: February 23, 2021

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges William James Mathew Wallace, II, Pro Se


California state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wallace's action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Wallace failed to comply with the district court's order to amend his in forma pauperis application despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Wallace's motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.


Copied to clipboard