JENNIFER JONES V. TOWN OF QUARTZSITE, No. 15-16279 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JENNIFER MARIE JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16279 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01383-JAT MEMORANDUM* TOWN OF QUARTZSITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Jennifer Marie Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Al-Torki v. * 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). Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’s action for failure to prosecute where Jones had agreed to the trial date and had been warned that her case would be dismissed if she was not prepared to proceed on the date set for trial. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing the factors the court should consider in evaluating whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute). We reject as unsupported by the record Jones’s contention that the district court failed to consider less drastic sanctions. Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Jones’s action for failure to prosecute, we do not consider her challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 (“[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)). AFFIRMED. 2 15-16279

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.