Martinez v. Bruce P.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO MARTINEZ, Jr., No. 24-1810

D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01134-JLT-SKO Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* BRUCE P., Owner - Porterville Citrus; TONY L., Owner - Porterville Citrus; MARIO, Supervisor - Porterville Citrus; PORTERVILLE CITRUS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Martinez, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims related to the mislabeling of produce. We

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 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 and failure to prosecute. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Martinez’s action because Martinez failed to comply with the district court’s order to serve defendants despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion to reopen because Martinez failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59).

Martinez’s motion to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1810