James Jones, Sr., et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al, No. 09-56807 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAR 10 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES H. JONES, SR.; AUDRAE R. JONES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 09-56807 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03162-MMMVBK v. MEMORANDUM * CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. James H. Jones, Sr., and Audrae R. Jones appeal pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice because the Joneses failed to file an amended complaint after being given adequate time to do so and being warned twice that failure to do so may result in dismissal. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an action for lack of prosecution and explaining that [a] relatively brief period of delay is sufficient to justify a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute). AFFIRMED. 2 09-56807
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
