Shawn Damon Barth v. WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN DAMON BARTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DANNIAL VEGA; CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
No. 19-16647
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01242-WHO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, 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).
FILED
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16647
California state prisoner Shawn Damon Barth appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Barth’s action
without prejudice because Barth failed to comply with the district court’s orders to
file an amended complaint that alleged a closely related set of claims, despite
multiple warnings to comply with federal pleading and joinder requirements. See
id. at 1260-63 (discussing factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for
failure to comply with a court order; the district court’s dismissal should not be
disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of
judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d
870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --