NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TLATOANI-TEOTL TENAMAXTLE, No. 23-55477 TRUST ETO, Tenamxtle, Tlatoani-Teotl, beneficary, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01107-RSH-BLM

Plaintiff-Appellant,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

SHIELA S. POLK, Yavapai County Attorney; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Robert S. Huie, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Tlatoani-Teotl Tenamaxtle Trust ETO appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing its qui tam action under the False Claims Act

(“FCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

* 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). of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action where

Tenamaxtle failed to serve the federal government or obtain counsel, despite being

warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (factors

that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute

or failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261

(9th Cir. 1992) (this court may review the record independently if the district court

does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors); see also

31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) (FCA qui tam plaintiffs must serve federal government at

outset before case can proceed); Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502

F.3d 1116, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (FCA qui tam plaintiffs may not proceed pro

se).

We reject as unsupported by the record Tenamaxtle’s contentions that the

district court was biased against it.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-55477