ANDREW STRICK V. DOUG PITTS, No. 12-35918 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 1 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ANDREW STRICK, No. 12-35918 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05110-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* DOUG PITTS; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 22, 2014** Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Former Washington state prisoner Andrew Strick appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his arrest and subsequent incarceration for violations of his community custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Strick s action without prejudice for failure to prosecute in light of Strick s failure to participate in the proceedings, including his failure to respond to defendants proposed joint status report and the district court s order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing factors to guide the court s decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting dismissal will be disturbed only if there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 12-35918
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.
