Roberts v. Studio 15
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Roberts v. Studio 15 (2024-08-06); Roberts v. Studio 15 (2025-03-24) — the district court's orders 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, No. 25-3661 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-01329-JLS-SBC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* STUDIO 15; DOE, San Diego Police Officer 8332, Ouire; ZACHARY BLOCK; SEX CRIME UNIT; JOVNA QUINTA; GLORIA; DEBRA JANE; STEVE DOE; KENNY DOE; DENISE H. RUTH RIVERIA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.
Tina Louise Roberts appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). dismissing her action alleging violations of federal and state law. 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 to amend the complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice Roberts’s action because Roberts failed to file an amended complaint despite being warned that a failure to do so would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
(establishing that a district court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-62 (setting forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and noting that this court may review the record independently to determine if the district court abused its discretion).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 25-3661