JOHN CRIM V. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORP., No. 17-16676 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 5 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN MICHAEL CRIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16676 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-02041-AWI-GSA v. MEMORANDUM* MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. John Michael Crim, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan 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). Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Crim’s action because Crim failed to comply with a court order and meet deadlines, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as without merit Crim’s contentions that he was denied due process or deprived of any rights or privileges. We do not consider the district court’s order denying Crim’s request to use electronic filing because Crim did not file an amended notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 17-16676
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.
