MYCHAL REED V. CSP LAC, ET AL, No. 22-56097 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MYCHAL ANDRA REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-56097 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10727-SB-AS v. MEMORANDUM* CSP LAC; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; PAULETTE FINANDER, Chief M.D. Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; C. HUGHES, Lt.: Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; SAL URIBE, Correctional Officer: Individual Capacity and Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Mychal Andra Reed appeals pro se from the district * 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). court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Reed’s action because the court granted Reed multiple continuances, Reed informed the court that he was ready to proceed to trial, Reed failed to appear for trial and a show cause hearing, and the court had warned Reed that failure to appear could result in dismissal. See id. at 831 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case as a sanction under a district court’s inherent power to control its docket); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent a “definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). In light of our disposition, we do not consider Reed’s challenge to the district court’s interlocutory order dismissing Reed’s ADA claims. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 22-56097 We reject as unsupported by the record Reed’s contentions that the district court violated his due process rights or was biased and prejudiced against him. AFFIRMED. 3 22-56097
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.
