NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK LUEHRING, No. 23-1521 D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01426-GW-SHK Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; DETAIL 2601; LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; DOES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; LOHNNIE DAY; ADAM STROLL; TIM HOUSER; BRIAN BANKS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2024**

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, 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). Frederick Luehring appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of an arrest. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc.

v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Luehring’s

action because Luehring failed to comply with court orders to serve the complaint

and to show cause regarding service, despite the district court’s warning that

failure to serve the complaint or file some other document showing diligent

prosecution would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district court may

dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules

or a court order”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43 (9th Cir. 2002)

(discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to comply

with a court order; a district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a

definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment”

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Luehring’s contention that the

district court disregarded a response to the order to show cause.

Luehring’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, are

2 23-1521 denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-1521