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:T4ef,MEMORANDUM Kang-Shen Chen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Gala-za, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir.1998) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chen’s action with prejudice after Chen’s wife, a non-party, requested an indefinite stay and failed to take steps to be appointed as Chen’s guardian or obtain counsel, despite being admonished of the need to do so if Chen was incapable of litigating on his own behalf and warned of the possibility of dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (setting forth factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order); see also Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 400-01 (a presumption of prejudice arises from a plaintiffs failure to prosecute or from an unreasonable delay). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.24:T51c,

MEMORANDUM

Kang-Shen Chen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Gala-za, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir.1998) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chen’s action with prejudice after Chen’s wife, a non-party, requested an indefinite stay and failed to take steps to be appointed as Chen’s guardian or obtain counsel, despite being admonished of the need to do so if Chen was incapable of litigating on his own behalf and warned of the possibility of dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (setting forth factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order); see also Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 400-01 (a presumption of prejudice arises from a plaintiffs failure to prosecute or from an unreasonable delay).

AFFIRMED.

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