Ludmila Boiko v. Santa Cruz County ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 6 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LUDMILA BOIKO,                                  No.    18-16777
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:18-cv-03324-LHK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SANTA CRUZ COUNTY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 3, 2020**
    Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    Ludmila Boiko appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her
    action alleging federal claims arising from the mistreatment of her adult daughter.
    We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of
    discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 
    739 F.2d 493
    , 495
    *
    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).
    (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Boiko’s action
    because Boiko failed to file an amended complaint even after receiving an
    extension of time. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 
    291 F.3d 639
    , 642-43 (9th Cir.
    2002) (discussing the five factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 
    648 F.3d 779
    , 788
    (9th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews the record independently if the district court
    does not make explicit findings regarding each of the factors).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    18-16777
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-16777

Filed Date: 3/6/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/6/2020