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:T4a5,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Kenneth A. Sierra appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute and to obey a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Sierra failed to submit a filing fee after being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an action for lack of prosecution and explaining that “the district court is in a much better position than we are to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable”). We do not consider Sierra’s contentions concerning the district court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. See id. at 497-98 (interlocutory orders are not appealable after dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4d7,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Kenneth A. Sierra appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute and to obey a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Sierra failed to submit a filing fee after being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an action for lack of prosecution and explaining that “the district court is in a much better position than we are to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable”).

We do not consider Sierra’s contentions concerning the district court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. See id. at 497-98 (interlocutory orders are not appealable after dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute).

AFFIRMED.

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