Michael Achilles Fries v. Kernan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ACHILLES FRIES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KERNAN; PFAIFFER; J. McALISTER; D.
SELLERS; R. TINSLEY; FAULKNER; C.
GONZALES; A. LUCAS; C. K. CHEN; R.
LOZOVOY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-16827
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00652-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Achilles Fries appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
JUN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16827
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291
F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Fries’s action
after Fries failed to file an amended complaint as ordered or inform the court of an
affirmative choice not to amend. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors to consider
in determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply
with a court order; this court may review the record independently to determine if
the district court abused its discretion).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fries’s request for
an extension of time because Fries failed to establish good cause for granting the
extension. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th
Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review for denial of extension of time and
good cause requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)).
Fries’s motion for waiver of fees and summary judgment (Docket Entry No.
5) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --