Lacey Sivak v. John Doe ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FEB 23 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LACEY MARK SIVAK,                                No. 20-35216
    Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00234-DCN
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JOHN DOE,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 17, 2021**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    Idaho state prisoner Lacey Mark Sivak appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his action
    alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review
    for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
    *
    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).
    Procedure 41(b). Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 
    963 F.2d 1258
    , 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We
    affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Sivak’s action
    after warning him that failure to pay the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis
    status would result in dismissal. See 
    id. at 1260-63
     (setting forth factors for
    determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) and
    requiring “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear
    error of judgment” in order to overturn such a dismissal (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted)); see also 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
     (an action may proceed
    without the payment of filing fees only upon granting of in forma pauperis status).
    We reject as without merit Sivak’s contentions of bias or misconduct on the
    part of the district judge and district court clerk.
    We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    All pending motions and requests are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     20-35216
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-35216

Filed Date: 2/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/23/2021