David J. Lashgari v. William J. Bratton , 408 F. App'x 56 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 07 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID T. LASHGARI and MARJE H.                   No. 09-56289
    LASHGARI,
    D.C. No. 2:04-cv-03322-SJO-OP
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    WILLIAM J. BRATTON, LAPD, Chief;
    et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    JOHN ERDERT; et al.,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2010 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    *
    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).
    David T. Lashgari and Marje H. Lashgari appeal pro se from the district
    court’s orders dismissing their 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to prosecute and
    denying their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for abuse of discretion. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum
    Worldwide, Inc., 
    555 F.3d 772
    , 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (reconsideration); Pagtalunan
    v. Galaza, 
    291 F.3d 639
    , 640-41 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to prosecute). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for
    failure to prosecute after it warned the Lashgaris that noncompliance with its order
    to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal and it granted an extension
    of time to comply, and the Lashgaris failed to amend their complaint for
    approximately six months after the deadline for doing so. See Pagtalunan, 
    291 F.3d at 642-43
     (discussing factors that district courts must consider before
    dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b))
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for
    reconsideration because the Lashgaris failed to provide a sufficient basis for
    reconsideration. See United Nat’l Ins. Co., 
    555 F.3d at 780
     (listing bases for
    reconsideration).
    2                                      09-56289
    Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not
    consider the Lashgaris’ challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See
    Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 
    78 F.3d 1381
    , 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).
    The Lashgaris’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    09-56289
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-56289

Citation Numbers: 408 F. App'x 56

Judges: Goodwin, Thomas, Wallace

Filed Date: 1/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023