22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44d,MEMORANDUM Mario and Olga Leanos appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action against their mortgage lender and other private parties alleging constitutional violations and various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an order to amend the complaint. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ action for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint because plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint, despite being afforded ample time to do so and being warned that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of their action. See id. at 1177-78 ; see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T47a,

MEMORANDUM

Mario and Olga Leanos appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action against their mortgage lender and other private parties alleging constitutional violations and various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an order to amend the complaint. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ action for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint because plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint, despite being afforded ample time to do so and being warned that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of their action. See id. at 1177-78 ; see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.