Henry Anderson v. Joseph Gums, and Superior Court of San Joaquin County

70 F.3d 1277 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Henry ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph GUMS, Defendant, and Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-15956. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 20, 1995. * Decided Nov. 24, 1995. Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. MEMORANDUM ** Henry Anderson appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action for failure to comply with court orders and to pay sanctions for improperly requesting discovery and improperly opposing a motion for a protective order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we review the district court's dismissal for abuse of discretion, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 321 (1992). We vacate and remand. We find no basis in this record for the sanctions imposed on Anderson. Thus, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing…