
    Percy ANDERSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Percy Anderson, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Health & Human Services Agency, San Diego; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Percy Anderson, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. District Attorney’s Office; al., Defendants-Appellees,
    Nos. 13-56317, 13-56320, 13-56323.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2015.
    Percy Anderson, Sr., Lemon Grove, CA, pro se.
    Ricky Rodriguez Sanchez, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Percy Anderson, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his actions alleging federal and state law violations arising out of the removal of his children from his home.' We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Anderson’s eases without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Anderson failed to oppose dispositive motions, to appear at hearings, and to provide sufficient evidence showing incompetence during litigation, despite having had multiple opportunities to do so. See Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir.1989) (where a “substantial question exists regarding the competence of an unrepresented party,” “[t]he district court has discretion to dismiss the cases without prejudice”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496-97 (9th Cir.1984) (setting forth factors for evaluating dismissal for failure to prosecute).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     