CLARENCE HICKMAN, SR. V. COUNTY OF BUTTE, No. 14-15517 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLARENCE B. HICKMAN, Sr., Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-15517 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02156-KJMKJN v. COUNTY OF BUTTE; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Clarence B. Hickman, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. We review the dismissal for an abuse of discretion, Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, * 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). 674 (9th Cir. 1981), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hickman’s action following Hickman’s failure to file an appropriate amendment, because the district court specifically warned Hickman that his action could be dismissed if he failed to file a compliant amended complaint. See id. at 673-74 (a complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed under Rule 41(b)); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing factors relevant for failure to comply with court order and explaining that, although dismissal is a harsh penalty, district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 14-15517

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.