Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Chris GRINDLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derek KAAUKAI, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-16254

Decided: June 29, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Chris Grindling, Pro Se Peter Hanano, Esquire, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Moana Monique Lutey, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Glen Pascual, DYCOC, County of Maui, Department of the Corporation Counsel, Wailuku, HI, for Defendant-Appellee


Chris Grindling appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Grindling's action because Grindling failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee by the deadline set by the district court, and the district court warned him that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 640, 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for 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 denying Grindling's motions for reconsideration because Grindling failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

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).


Copied to clipboard