Robert Hill v. Score Jail, a Municipal Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCORE JAIL, a Municipal Corporation; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35913
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01804-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Hill, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v.
* 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
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35913
Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hill’s action
after granting Hill three extensions of time to respond to the court’s order to show
cause and warning him that failure to respond would result in dismissal. See id. at
642 (setting forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed
for failure to comply with a court order); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (trial court’s dismissal will be disturbed only if there is
“a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of
judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hill’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --