Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10700318
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Martinez v. Bruce P.
No. 10700318 · Decided October 10, 2025
No. 10700318·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 10, 2025
Citation
No. 10700318
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO MARTINEZ, Jr., No.