Vilaychith Khouanmany v. PAUL PENZONE, Sheriff of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Jail Commander, Estrella Jail

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAUL PENZONE, Sheriff of Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office, Jail Commander,
Estrella Jail; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16594
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02983-SRB-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Vilaychith Khouanmany appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with its orders her action
alleging constitutional claims arising out of her incarceration in multiple jails and
* 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
JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16594
prisons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Khouanmany’s
action without prejudice because Khouanmany failed to comply with the district
court’s orders to file an amended complaint that complied with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules, despite multiple warnings that failure
to do could result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for
determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) and
requiring “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear
error of judgment” in order to overturn such a dismissal (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).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --