Pamela Marie Snyder, an individual v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national association;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAMELA MARIE SNYDER, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national
association; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15350
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04228-KAW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 3, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, 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
FEB 6 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Pamela Marie Snyder appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of
her action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 41(b). We
review dismissal pursuant to those Rules for an abuse of discretion, Yourish v.
California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.
The district court weighed the five criteria governing dismissals under both
Rules and held that those criteria were in favor of dismissal. Thompson v. Housing
Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 883
F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). The district court found that Snyder failed to
comply with deadlines that were repeatedly extended at her request, that
defendants had been prejudiced by having to prepare multiple times for trial due to
continuances, and that less drastic alternative remedies were not feasible given
Snyder’s previous conduct in the litigation. This analysis and the ultimate
dismissal of the action were not an abuse of discretion.
The other interlocutory orders that Snyder identifies in her notice of appeal
are not appealable. Al-Tork v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996)
(“Interlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not
appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to
prosecute is purposeful or a result of negligence or mistake.”).
The motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket No. 39) is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --