Benitez v. Phelan
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Andrew G. Schopler (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Benitez v. Carlos Del Toro (2023-10-10) — the district court's order on this docket in the record
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODRIGO BENITEZ, No. 24-1311 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-01242-AGS-BGS Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN PHELAN, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Andrew George Schopler, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 12, 2025** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rodrigo Benitez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
* 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). 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Benitez’s action because Benitez failed to comply with the district court’s orders to file an amended complaint and serve defendant despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 640-43 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order and explaining that such a dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)
(explaining that this court may review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors).
AFFIRMED.
2 24-1311