NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID ALAN HELDRETH, Jr., CEO of No. 24-4128 Panacea Plant Sciences, Inc., D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00477-RSM Plaintiff - Appellant,

and MEMORANDUM*

PANACEA PLANT SCIENCES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as United States Attorney General; DOJ - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DEREK S. MALTZ, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; PAUL E. SOEFFING, in his official capacity of an Administrative Law Judge of the Drug Enforcement Administration,

Defendants - Appellees.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025**

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

David Alan Heldreth, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action challenging the constitutionality of a federal regulatory

process for scheduling drugs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court

order 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 in dismissing Heldreth’s action

because Heldreth failed to comply with a court order to retain counsel for his

company, co-Plaintiff Panacea Plant Sciences, Inc., and to refrain from filing

motions until counsel was retained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting dismissal

“[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order”); Hells

Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)

(explaining that a district court may dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)).

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-4128