NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINCENT U. SOLOMON, AKA Vincent No. 19-15219 Urain Solomon, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01801-DAD-JDP Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

INES CASTANEDA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

A. BANKS; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Vincent U. Solomon appeals pro se from the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v.

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Solomon’s action

after Solomon failed to file a second amended complaint as ordered or inform the

court of an affirmative choice not to amend. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors

to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for

failure to comply with a court order); see also Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356

F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond

to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the

court that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b)

dismissal.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-15219