NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 17 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICHOLAS PATRICK, No. 18-17312 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00239-LJO-JDP v. MEMORANDUM* REYNAGA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and F. FELECIANO; et al., Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

* 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).

Former California state prisoner Nicholas Patrick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to comply with court order); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Patrick’s action after Patrick failed to comply with the district court’s order to respond to or oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d. at 642 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[I]t is not required that the district court make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these factors . . . we may review the record independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion”).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-17312