LUIS OSOLLO V. LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND, No. 18-56018 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 26 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS OSOLLO, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-56018 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03045-SJO-SHK v. LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 24, 2020** Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Luis Osollo appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action arising from Los Angeles Unified School District’s (“LAUSD”) termination of his employment as substitute high school teacher and subsequent proceedings to suspend his California teacher’s credential. The district court dismissed the action * 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). pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and alternatively for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). We review the district court’s decision whether to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) for an abuse of discretion. Tillman v. Tillman, 825 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm the district court’s judgment. In light of Osollo’s repeated failure to comply with the district court’s orders to file a complaint that included a short and plain statement of claims, as required by Rule 8(a), despite the fact that he is an attorney, the district court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for dismissal when a plaintiff fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth factors to be weighed). AFFIRMED. 2

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.