ROBERT GRIFFIN V. ROBERT HERZOG, No. 17-35937 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT DEAN GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35937 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05394-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT HERZOG, Deputy Director Superintendent; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Robert Dean Griffin, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court * 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). orders. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Griffin’s action because Griffin failed to file an amended complaint that complied with the district court’s pleading instructions or indicate that he intended to stand on a prior complaint. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed for failure to comply with the district court’s orders). 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). Griffin’s motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 22) and motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 29) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-35937

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.