Saul Barrios Perez v. DILL, Assistant Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DILL, Assistant Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16135
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01794-LJO-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Saul Barrios Perez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth
Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
FILED
AUG 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
2002), and we vacate and remand.
The district court dismissed this action because Perez failed to file his pre-
trial statement. However, in his response to the order to show cause, Perez
explained that his failure to comply with the scheduling order was attributable to
prison officials’ interference with his ability to prosecute his case. Under these
circumstances, we conclude that dismissal was an abuse of discretion. See id. at
642-43 (listing factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a
court order); 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 vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Defendants shall bear the costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
13-16135 2

-- 2 of 2 --