NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, TROTT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sharon A. Martin and Marjorie Phelps ("plaintiffs") appeal pro se the district court's: (1) order dismissing their complaint with prejudice for failure to respond to the district court's order to show cause; and (2) order imposing $2,500 in sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 41(b) dismissals and orders awarding Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (Rule 41(b)); Terran v. Kaplan, 109 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir.1997) (Rule 11 sanctions), and we affirm.
Plaintiffs' contention that defendants were in default because defendants filed a motion to dismiss before answering the complaint lacks merit. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Medical Servs. Inc., 855 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1988).
Plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred by dismissing their complaint also lacks merit. In a June 23, 1997 order, the district court expressed its intention to grant defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In order to determine whether leave to amend should be granted, the district court ordered plaintiffs to "support each claim against each defendant with a factual showing and the source of that factual information" within 16 days. The order also required plaintiffs to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed. The order explicitly stated that failure to comply would result in monetary damages and/or dismissal of the claims with prejudice. Plaintiff's did not comply. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1269 (9th Cir.1992).
Plaintiff's contend the district court erred in awarding sanctions to certain defendants because the claims against these defendants (RICO claims) do not provide for sanctions. Sanctions were awarded under Rule 11, which applies to all civil actions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding sanctions. See In Re Grantham Bros., 922 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir.1991)
Because a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would not conclude that Judge Burrell's partiality might reasonably be questioned, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify. See Hirsh v. Justices of Sup.Ct. of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.