NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAWN DAMON BARTH, No. 19-16647 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01242-WHO v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and DANNIAL VEGA; CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2021** Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, 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).

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

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Barth’s action without prejudice because Barth failed to comply with the district court’s orders to file an amended complaint that alleged a closely related set of claims, despite multiple warnings to comply with federal pleading and joinder requirements. See id. at 1260-63 (discussing factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order; the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-16647