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:T47c,MEMORANDUM Former California state prisoner Malik Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging eonstitutiónal violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik v. Bmzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,1260 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jones’s action after Jones failed to file an amended complaint or to submit documents for service of process within the time ordered by the court. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260 (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the 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)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a9,

MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Malik Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging eonstitutiónal violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik v. Bmzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,1260 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jones’s action after Jones failed to file an amended complaint or to submit documents for service of process within the time ordered by the court. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260 (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the 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)).

AFFIRMED.

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