VINCENT SOLOMON V. M. CARRASCO, No. 16-15436 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VINCENT U. SOLOMON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15436 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01511-LJO-SKO v. MEMORANDUM* M. CARRASCO; M. DAILO, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Vincent U. Solomon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his 42 U.S. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 * 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). F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Solomon’s action after Solomon failed to comply with court orders or meet deadlines, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (setting forth the factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order). We reject as unsupported by the record Solomon’s contention that the district court judge was biased. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15436
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.
