DOUGLAS KISAKA V. USC, No. 14-55649 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 26 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS KISAKA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-55649 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01942-BROMAN v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Douglas Kisaka appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising various incidents that occurred on the University of Southern California’s campus. We have jurisdiction under * 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 without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with court orders. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kisaka’s action after Kisaka repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, meet deadlines, or appear at hearings, despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Kisaka’s action for failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Kisaka’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, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Kisaka’s request for judicial notice, filed on April 9, 2015, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-55649
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.
