ROBERTO CHAIDEZ V. SUSAN HUBBARD, No. 18-15885 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO CHAIDEZ, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-15885 D.C. No. 4:17-cv-01032-JSW v. MEMORANDUM* SUSAN HUBBARD, Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Roberto Chaidez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 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 orders. Ferdik 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). Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chaidez’s action because Chaidez failed to file an amended complaint that complied with the district court’s instructions to give a short and clear description of the wrongful conduct and each defendant’s involvement. 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; where the district court does not make explicit findings concerning these factors, we “review the record independently to determine if [it] has abused its discretion”). We reject as without merit Chaidez’s contentions that the district court lacked authority to screen his complaint and erred by imposing a page limit on Chaidez’s second amended complaint. We reject as unsupported by the record Chaidez’s contention concerning bias of the district court. AFFIRMED. 2 18-15885

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.