You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Ellington v. California Department of Corrections

Citation: 175 F. App'x 796Docket: No. 05-16441

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 15, 2006; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Marcus Ruben Ellington appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action by the district court, which was based on his failure to adhere to court orders and rules. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The standard for overturning such a dismissal requires a firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error in judgment. The appellate court affirms the district court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing Ellington's action due to his repeated non-compliance with court directives. The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review Standard for Dismissal

Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's dismissal for abuse of discretion, requiring a firm conviction of clear error to overturn.

Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The standard for overturning such a dismissal requires a firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error in judgment.

Dismissal for Non-Compliance with Court Orders

Application: The district court dismissed Marcus Ruben Ellington's civil rights action due to his repeated failure to comply with court orders and rules.

Reasoning: Marcus Ruben Ellington appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action by the district court, which was based on his failure to adhere to court orders and rules.

Non-Publication and Citation of Judicial Opinions

Application: The ruling in Ellington's case is designated as non-precedential and cannot be cited in future cases pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Reasoning: The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.