John Michael Crim v. Management & Training Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16676
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-02041-AWI-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
John Michael Crim, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law
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
JAN 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16676
Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Crim’s action
because Crim failed to comply with a court order and meet deadlines, despite being
warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43
(discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to
comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.
1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal should
not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear
error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Crim’s contentions that he was denied due
process or deprived of any rights or privileges.
We do not consider the district court’s order denying Crim’s request to use
electronic filing because Crim did not file an amended notice of appeal. See Fed.
R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --