Demetrius A. Wilson v. DAVID SHINN, Director

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEMETRIUS A. WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID SHINN, Director; CENTURION
HEALTH OF ADOC; STATE OF
ARIZONA; PACHECO, Tucson Complex
Warden Pacheco, sued in both individual and
official capacity; NEIL, ADW, Whetstone
Unit, sued in both individual and official
capacity; JOSEFOWICZ, DW/Whetstone
Unit, sued in both individual and official
capacity; MARTINEZ, named as DW
Martinez/Whetstone Unit, sued in both
individual and official capacity; SUSANNA
C. PINEDA, Honorable, Superior Court of
Maricopa County, sued in both individual
and official capacity; BRASCHLER, named
as Assistant Deputy Warden Braschler, sued
in both individual and official capacity;
PULICICCHIO, Captain, sued in both
individual and official capacity; ROJAS,
SSU, C.O. II #5695, sued in both individual
and official capacity; GALAVIZ, Sgt. #9368,
sued in both individual and official capacity;
WINN NGUYEN, #9591, sued in both
individual and official capacity; F.
MAJALCA, #9626, sued in both individual
No. 21-16180
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00416-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16180
and official capacity; M. JASSO, Lt., sued in
both individual and official capacity;
CHRISTINA L. AABERG, Disciplinary
Hearing Officer at Arizona Department of
Corrections, sued in both individual and
official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Demetrius A. Wilson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation,
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of
confinement, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v.
Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wilson’s action
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16180
because Wilson failed to respond timely to the district court’s order to amend the
complaint despite being warned failure to comply would result in dismissal. See
id. at 642-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss for
failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be
disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed
a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider Wilson’s contentions relating to his motion for
reconsideration because that issue is outside the scope of this appeal.
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).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --