
    Alfred Arthur SANDOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BARNEBURG, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15024.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2012.
    Alfred Arthur Sandoval, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Vickie P. Whitney, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Alfred Arthur Sandoval appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Sandoval’s action without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order to allege unrelated claims in separate complaints and identify which actions of the individual defendants violated his rights with regard to each claim. See id. at 1260-63 (discussing factors to consider when determining whether dismissal for failure to comply with a court order was an abuse of discretion).

Sandoval’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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