MICHAEL FOLEY V. MICHELLE PONT, No. 14-16774 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL FOLEY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-16774 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01769-JCMVCF v. MICHELLE PONT, an individual; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Michael Foley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Foley’s action * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision for failure to prosecute in accordance with local rules because, after Foley failed to file documents in the district court for more than 270 days, he failed to respond timely to the district court’s notice to take action. See D. Nev. Civ. R. 41-1 (permitting dismissal after notice of actions that span 270 days without any proceeding of record); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (discussing factors to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider Foley’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]”). Appellees AP Express, AP Express Worldwide, LLC, and Jeffery Pont’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9), and Foley’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, are granted. Appellee Bradley’s request for sanctions, set forth in her answering brief, is denied without prejudice. AFFIRMED. without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 14-16774
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.
