Ronald L. Vertin v. TERRY L. GODDARD, Former Attorney General of the State of Arizona;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD L. VERTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TERRY L. GODDARD, Former Attorney
General of the State of Arizona; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15026
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01167-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ronald L. Vertin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations in
connection with the civil forfeiture of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15026 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal
for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640
(9th Cir. 2002). We reverse and remand.
The district court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) as to why Vertin’s
action should not be dismissed for failure to serve defendants in a timely manner.
Before the OSC deadline, Vertin filed service documents that he apparently
thought constituted a sufficient response. However, the district court dismissed for
failure to comply with the OSC without analysis, further opportunity to respond, or
exploration of less harsh alternatives. Under these circumstances, we conclude that
dismissal was an abuse of discretion. See id. at 642-43 & n.4 (listing factors to
consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order and explaining
that less drastic alternatives must be pursued after disobedience); Oliva v. Sullivan,
958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, it should
be imposed as a sanction only in extreme circumstances.”). Accordingly, we
reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --