John H. Todd, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John Slansky, et al., Defendants-appellees, 60 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 1995)

MEMORANDUM^** 

John H. Todd appeals pro se the district court's dismissal, without prejudice, of Todd's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants John Slansky of the Nevada Department of Parole and Probation and Nevada State Court Judge Merlyn Hoyt for failure to comply with the court's order to file an amended complaint.¹  We review the district court's dismissal for abuse of discretion, see West Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir. 1990), and we affirm.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action where the plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court. A dismissal under Rule 41(b) will not be disturbed unless we have "a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors." Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). The relevant factors include: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). If the district court made no specific findings to show that it considered these factors, this court will review the record independently to determine whether the district court abused its discretion. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986).

On appeal, Todd contends that his action should not have been dismissed because he did not receive a copy of the district court's July 8, 1994 order which (1) stated the deficiencies in Todd's complaint, (2) granted him 20 days in which to file an amended complaint, and (3) warned him that his complaint would be dismissed if he failed to file a timely amended complaint. A party, however, has a duty to stay apprised of the docket and informed of the district court's actions. See Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 799 F.2d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir. 1986) (" [a] party has an independent duty to keep informed and the mere failure of the clerk to notify the parties that judgment [or an order] has been entered does not provide grounds for excusable neglect"). Thus, Todd's contention lacks merit.²  Moreover, we have reviewed the district court's order and Todd's complaint and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Todd to amend his complaint and subsequently dismissing his action, without prejudice, when he failed to do so. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.³ 

AFFIRMED.