JAMAL HENDRIX V. ROMEO ARANAS, No. 18-17186 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX, AKA Jamar Hendrix, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-17186 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00155-MMDWGC MEMORANDUM* ROMEO ARANAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and STATE OF NEVADA; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jamal Damon Hendrix AKA Jamar Hendrix, a Nevada state prisoner, * 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). appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as a sanction for failure to attend a settlement conference. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hendrix’s action. Hendrix failed to attend a settlement conference, and after warning Hendrix it was considering a dismissal sanction, the district court considered written submissions, held a hearing, and found that Hendrix’s reasons for failure to attend were not credible. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We have repeatedly upheld the imposition of the sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules and court orders.”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-17186
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.
