Unpublished Disposition, 875 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^** 

L.J. Julian was involuntarily retired by the County of San Mateo because of alleged insubordination. Julian filed a charge of race and age discrimination against his union, American Federation, alleging the union refused to adequately represent him in grievance proceedings resulting in his involuntary retirement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rejected his claim as untimely, and Julian brought this pro se action. The district court denied Julian's request for appointment of counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis. When Julian failed to comply with the court's order directing him to pay his filing fee within 20 days, the court dismissed his action for lack of prosecution. Julian appeals. We affirm.

Julian's financial resources were relevant to the court's determination of whether to appoint counsel. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel on the basis of financial information supplied by Julian which indicated he owned a house worth $115,000, possessed $3,500 in cash, and had received a $2,600 tax refund within the past year. Cf. Neal v. IAM Local Lodge 2386, 722 F.2d 247, 250 (5th Cir. 1984). Because the court found Julian insufficiently indigent to merit appointment of counsel, it properly found he had not met the more stringent test for indigency required to proceed in forma pauperis. See Ivey, 673 F.2d at 269.

Neither did the court abuse its discretion by dismissing Julian's action for failure to comply with a court order. Dismissal advanced the policies of prompt resolution of litigation and effective docket management and prevented prejudice to American Federation. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987). The court explicitly warned Julian of the consequences of failing to comply and gave Julian time after the 20 days had elapsed to cure his lack of prosecution. Cf. id. at 131-33. Where all these factors favor dismissal, the countervailing policy in favor of disposition on the merits is insufficient to warrant reversal. See id. at 133 n. 2.

AFFIRMED.