MEMORANDUM

Raul Ernest Alonso-Prieto, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice Alonso-Prieto’s action for failure to prosecute in light of Alonso-Prieto’s failure to file a pretrial statement, even after the district court warned him that his action would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not file a pretrial statement. 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 prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (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)). Alonso-Prieto’s contention that he failed to prosecute because he is blind is unsupported by the record.

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Alonso-Prieto’s action for failure to prosecute, we do not consider Alonso-Prieto’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al- Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (“[Interlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal 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.