RANDY HOGE, JR. V. DUANE FRIEZE, No. 20-35710 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2021 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANDY L. HOGE, Jr., No. Plaintiff-Appellant, MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-35710 D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00244-JR v. MEMORANDUM* SUSEE, Deputy; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Randy L. Hoge, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his civil rights action for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). * 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). Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court dismissed Hoge’s initial complaint because it failed to state a claim of retaliation for the filing of a grievance when Hoge was a pretrial detainee, and the court advised Hoge that the action would be dismissed if he did not file an amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Entler v. Gregoire, 872 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 2017) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim). Instead of filing an amended complaint, Hoge filed a motion to amend. Because the additional information included in the motion to amend would not have cured the deficiencies in the complaint, the district court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. See Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth factors district court must consider in dismissing under Rule 41(b)). All pending motions are denied. 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.