687 Fed.Appx. 615 (9th Cir. 2017), 14-16400, Zochlinski v. University of California Bd. of Regents
| Docket Nº: | 14-16400 |
| Citation: | 687 Fed.Appx. 615 |
| Party Name: | HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF REGENTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees |
| Attorney: | HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Davis, CA. For UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF REGENTS, ROBERT C. DYNES, JOANNE KOZBERG, NORMAN PATTIZ, BENJAMIN ALLEN, ELEANOR BREWER, PHILIP J. BUGAY, WILLIAM DE LA PENA, JOHN GARAMENDI, RUSSELL GOULD, JUDITH HOPKINSON, E. R. ISLAND, ODES... |
| Judge Panel: | Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. |
| Case Date: | April 19, 2017 |
| Court: | United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Page 615
Submitted April 11, 2017.[**]
Editorial Note:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00024-TLN-CKD. Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding.
Zochlinski v. Univ. of Cal. Bd. of Regents, (E.D. Cal., June 26, 2014)
HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Davis, CA.
For UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF REGENTS, ROBERT C. DYNES, JOANNE KOZBERG, NORMAN PATTIZ, BENJAMIN ALLEN, ELEANOR BREWER, PHILIP J. BUGAY, WILLIAM DE LA PENA, JOHN GARAMENDI, RUSSELL GOULD, JUDITH HOPKINSON, E. R. ISLAND, ODESSA JOHNSON, SHERRY L. LANSING, MARIA LEDESMA, MONICA LOZANO, GEORGE MARCUS, JOHN J. MOORES, FABIAN NUNEZ, JACK O'CONNELL, PETER PREUSS, FRED RUIZ, LESLIE TANG SCHILLING, STEPHEN SCHREINER, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, BRUCE D. VARNER, PAUL WACHTER, TRISH BERGER, RICHARD C. BLUM, JEFFREY GIBELING, JOHN OAKLEY, GERALD L. PARSKY, LARRY VANDERHOEF, ANDREW WATERHOUSE, REEN WU, JEFFERSON COOMBS, ERIC SMITH, Defendants - Appellees: Gregory Mellon Fox, Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman & Wenzel, San Francisco, CA.
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Howard Alan Zochlinski appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court-ordered filing deadline. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Zochlinski's action for failure to comply with the court-ordered deadline for filing an amended complaint where Zochlinski instead submitted other detailed filings in lieu of the required amended complaint. See id. at 642-43 (setting forth the factors to consider before dismissing for...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP