The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, No. 14-16400
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00024-TLN-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD
OF REGENTS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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 failure to comply with a court order); see also
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“District courts have the
inherent power to control their dockets and, in the exercise of that power they may
impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal of a case.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zochlinski’s motion
for an extension of time to file an amended complaint because Zochlinski failed to
show good cause for the extension. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624
F.3d at 1253, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and the
good cause requirement for extensions of time).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zochlinski’s motion
to alter or amend the judgment because Zochlinski failed to set forth any basis for
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for relief
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).
2 14-16400
We reject as without merit Zochlinski’s contention that the district court was
required to provide him additional advice on how to draft a viable amended
complaint.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments, allegations, or materials raised for the first time
on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
We do not consider Zochlinski’s renewed request for appointment of
counsel, raised in his opening brief, in light of the court’s December 8, 2015 order
(Docket Entry No. 37).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-16400