NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARNITHA HILL; TIANA No. 24-4185 FIELDS; ANTHONY D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01625-DJC-AC

GRANDERSON; BREJONNA

GRANDERSON; MONTREAL

GRANDERSON; UNIQUE FIELDS, MEMORANDUM*

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; ROBERT

HAMM, Sgt. #3018; DELGADO, Officer #358; BRETT MELLOCH, Officer #602; DEREK CALABRESE, Officer 1005; ERICK NEDELJKOVIC; JOSEPH SWALEH, Officer 900,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

* 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). Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Arnitha Hill, Tiana Fields, Anthony Granderson, Brejonna Granderson,

Montreal Granderson, and Unique Fields appeal pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Applied

Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ action

because plaintiffs failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause regarding

defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, despite a warning

that failure to respond would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

(permitting dismissal of an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply

with these rules or a court order”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43

(9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for

failure to comply with a court order; a district court’s dismissal should not be

disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “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).

2 24-4185 In light of our disposition, we do not consider plaintiffs’ contentions

challenging the district court’s order dismissing the first amended complaint. See

Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that

interlocutory orders are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute).

We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contention that the magistrate judge

should have been recused.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-4185