TAEK YOON V. LEE, No. 20-56248 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TAEK SANG YOON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-56248 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:11-cv-06792-VAP-KK MEMORANDUM* LEE, Physician CRC; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and DURANT, Librarian CRC, PINECO, CRC Correctional Officer, individual capacity, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Former California state prisoner Taek Sang Yoon appeals pro se from the * 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). district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 921 F.3d 803, 821 (9th Cir. 2019) (dismissal as a discovery sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Yoon’s action because Yoon repeatedly failed to appear for his deposition, properly meet and confer, or comply with court orders, and Yoon was notified that dismissal was imminent. 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 20-56248
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.
