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:T426,MEMORANDUM Eric Charles Rodney K’napp, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to comply with the court’s order after specifically warning K’napp that any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) concerning joinder of claims and defendants and could not “assert a grab-bag of unrelated claims against different defendants,” and cautioning K’napp that failure to comply with the court’s order would result in dismissal of the action. See id. at 640^2. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T453,

MEMORANDUM

Eric Charles Rodney K’napp, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to comply with the court’s order after specifically warning K’napp that any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) concerning joinder of claims and defendants and could not “assert a grab-bag of unrelated claims against different defendants,” and cautioning K’napp that failure to comply with the court’s order would result in dismissal of the action. See id. at 640^2.

AFFIRMED.

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