Williams v. Parsells | Court Opinion

Opinions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE WILLIAMS, No. 24-254 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-00514-KJM-KJN v. MEMORANDUM* R. PARSELLS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Lance Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his custody

in a California prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

for an abuse of discretion. Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d

* 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). 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022

(9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal as a discovery sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37). We

affirm.

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

after Williams failed to comply with the district court’s order to appear for and

participate in his deposition, despite being warned that noncompliance would result

in dismissal, because the record supports the finding that Williams’s conduct was

willful. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (permitting dismissal of an action where a

party has failed to comply with court’s discovery orders); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

(permitting dismissal of an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply

with these rules or a court order”); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab.

Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226, 1233 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing five factors that

courts must weigh in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 37(b) and

explaining that “Rule 37 sanctions, including dismissal, may be imposed where the

violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-254