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:T455,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Christopher Lee Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice because Jenkins failed to comply with its order requiring him to file a second amended complaint, after the court had already granted Jenkins three other extensions and warned Jenkins that no further extensions would be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 1260-61 (listing factors to consider). Jenkins’s request that this court provide him with copies of “the blank informal appellants opening brief’ and “the actual complaint on appeal” is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T487,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Christopher Lee Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice because Jenkins failed to comply with its order requiring him to file a second amended complaint, after the court had already granted Jenkins three other extensions and warned Jenkins that no further extensions would be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 1260-61 (listing factors to consider).

Jenkins’s request that this court provide him with copies of “the blank informal appellants opening brief’ and “the actual complaint on appeal” is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

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