Roberts v. Studio 15

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2026

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, No. 25-3661

D.C. No. 3:24-cv-01329-JLS-SBC Plaintiff - Appellant, v.

MEMORANDUM* STUDIO 15; DOE, San Diego Police Officer 8332, Ouire; ZACHARY BLOCK; SEX CRIME UNIT; JOVNA QUINTA; GLORIA; DEBRA JANE; STEVE DOE; KENNY DOE; DENISE H. RUTH RIVERIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Tina Louise Roberts appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. dismissing her action alleging violations of federal and state law. 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 to amend the complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice Roberts’s action because Roberts failed to file an amended complaint despite being warned that a failure to do so would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (establishing that a district court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-62 (setting forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and noting that this court may review the record independently to determine if the district court abused its discretion).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3661