RANDY L. HOGE, Jr. v. SUSEE, Deputy;

20-35710Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 21, 2021

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDY L. HOGE, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SUSEE, Deputy; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35710
D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00244-JR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Randy L. Hoge, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing with prejudice his civil rights action for failure to comply with a court
order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
* 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
DEC 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court dismissed Hoge’s initial complaint because it failed to
state a claim of retaliation for the filing of a grievance when Hoge was a pretrial
detainee, and the court advised Hoge that the action would be dismissed if he did
not file an amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Entler v. Gregoire, 872
F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim).
Instead of filing an amended complaint, Hoge filed a motion to amend. Because
the additional information included in the motion to amend would not have cured
the deficiencies in the complaint, the district court properly exercised its discretion
in dismissing with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. See Applied
Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth
factors district court must consider in dismissing under Rule 41(b)).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.