Michael Denton v. Sheriff Pastor ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 22 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MICHAEL DENTON,                                 No.    18-36000
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05314-RJB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SHERIFF PASTOR, individually and in
    their official capacities; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2019**
    Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Michael Denton, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and
    Fourteenth Amendment claims. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal
    for failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    41(b) or pursuant to local rules. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 
    191 F.3d 983
    , 986
    (9th Cir. 1999); Ghazali v. Moran, 
    46 F.3d 52
    , 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We vacate and
    remand.
    The district court dismissed Denton’s action before developing a complete
    factual record on Denton’s failure to appear at the pretrial conference and his
    alleged history of noncompliance with the court’s orders. Moreover, in his
    opening brief, Denton explains that he could not attend the pretrial conference
    because prison officials told him that they could not open the cell door. We vacate
    the judgment and remand to the district court to consider Denton’s explanation in
    the first instance, and to provide Denton with an opportunity to respond to
    defendants’ contentions concerning other instances of noncompliance with the
    district court’s orders.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                   18-36000
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-36000

Filed Date: 11/22/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/22/2019