Unpublished Disposition, 894 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988)

No. 88-1851.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before WIGGINS, DAVID R. THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges

MEMORANDUM^** 

Appellant Richard M. Peekema contests the dismissal of his suit against the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) for failure to prosecute. On October 11, 1984, appellant filed suit against the U.S.D.A. to set aside a federal marketing order. On October 8, 1985, the district court ordered appellant to amend his complaint to name suable defendants. Appellant never responded to the court's order. On November 25, 1987, the U.S.D.A. filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The district court granted that motion on January 15, 1988. We have jurisdiction of appellant's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982).

We review a dismissal for failure to prosecute for abuse of discretion. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).

The failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the delay. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). We presume injury from unreasonable delay. Id. Appellant's failure to respond to the district court's order for over two years constitutes an unreasonable delay. See, e.g., Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (district court did not abuse its discretion in finding unreasonable a failure to prosecute after six weeks), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1007 (1985).

Although appellant contends that the district court's order requiring him to amend his complaint was invalid, his belief that the district court issued an invalid pretrial order does not justify his failure to obey it. See Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 59 (1988). Appellant offers no other reason for allowing his appeal to languish for over two years. Thus we have no " 'definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment.' " Anderson, 542 F.2d at 525 (quoting In re Josephson, 218 F.2d 174 (1st Cir. 1954).

We AFFIRM.