JAMES BRAMMER V. JAMES YATES, No. 13-15877 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 20 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES W. BRAMMER, No. 13-15877 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01350-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted August 13, 2014*** Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner James W. Brammer appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brammer s action after Brammer failed to comply with repeated court orders to file a response or statement of non-opposition to defendant s motion to dismiss or face possible dismissal of his case. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing factors to be weighed before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute or failure to follow the local rules). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified its judgment to a dismissal without prejudice in response to Brammer s first Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, citing Brammer s pro se status and the fact that dismissal without prejudice is a less drastic alternative. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds justifying relief). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brammer s second Rule 60(b) motion because Brammer did not set forth any basis for reconsideration. See id. AFFIRMED. 2 13-15877

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.