DEMETRIUS WILSON V. DAVID SHINN, No. 21-16180 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEMETRIUS A. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-16180 D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00416-RCC MEMORANDUM* DAVID SHINN, Director; CENTURION HEALTH OF ADOC; STATE OF ARIZONA; PACHECO, Tucson Complex Warden Pacheco, sued in both individual and official capacity; NEIL, ADW, Whetstone Unit, sued in both individual and official capacity; JOSEFOWICZ, DW/Whetstone Unit, sued in both individual and official capacity; MARTINEZ, named as DW Martinez/Whetstone Unit, sued in both individual and official capacity; SUSANNA C. PINEDA, Honorable, Superior Court of Maricopa County, sued in both individual and official capacity; BRASCHLER, named as Assistant Deputy Warden Braschler, sued in both individual and official capacity; PULICICCHIO, Captain, sued in both individual and official capacity; ROJAS, SSU, C.O. II #5695, sued in both individual and official capacity; GALAVIZ, Sgt. #9368, sued in both individual and official capacity; WINN NGUYEN, #9591, sued in both individual and official capacity; F. MAJALCA, #9626, sued in both individual * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. and official capacity; M. JASSO, Lt., sued in both individual and official capacity; CHRISTINA L. AABERG, Disciplinary Hearing Officer at Arizona Department of Corrections, sued in both individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Demetrius A. Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wilson’s action ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 21-16180 because Wilson failed to respond timely to the district court’s order to amend the complaint despite being warned failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider Wilson’s contentions relating to his motion for reconsideration because that issue is outside the scope of this appeal. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 21-16180
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.
