MYCHAEL SHANNON V. IKEGBU, No. 20-16133 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MYCHAEL TYRONE SHANNON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-16133 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00161-WBS-EFB MEMORANDUM* IKEGBU, Chief Physician & Surgeon; S. GATES, Chief of Appeals, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Mychael Tyrone Shannon 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 district court’s dismissal for failure to comply * 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). with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Shannon’s action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Shannon failed to advise the district court as to whether he was electing to proceed with his cognizable claims or file an amended complaint, despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 640, 642-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order; this court may review the record independently to determine if the district court abused its discretion). We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 20-16133

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.