ROBERT HILL V. SCORE JAIL, No. 18-35913 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT HILL, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35913 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01804-RSM v. MEMORANDUM* SCORE JAIL, a Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Robert Hill, a Washington state prisoner, 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 a court order. Pagtalunan 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). Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hill’s action after granting Hill three extensions of time to respond to the court’s order to show cause and warning him that failure to respond would result in dismissal. See id. at 642 (setting forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (trial court’s dismissal will be disturbed only if there is “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” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 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). Hill’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 18-35913

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.