VINCENT U. SOLOMON, AKA Vincent Urain Solomon v. Ines Castaneda;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT U. SOLOMON, AKA Vincent
Urain Solomon,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INES CASTANEDA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
A. BANKS; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-15219
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01801-DAD-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Vincent U. Solomon appeals pro se from the district
* 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).
FILED
MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15219
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 in dismissing Solomon’s action
after Solomon failed to file a second amended complaint as ordered or inform the
court of an affirmative choice not to amend. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors
to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to comply with a court order); see also Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356
F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond
to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the
court that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b)
dismissal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --