
    Roberto HERRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Huu NGUYEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed July 1, 2015.
    Roberto Herrera, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Roberto Herrera appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Herrera’s action without prejudice after Herrera failed to file a legible amended pleading in compli-anee with the local rules, despite being warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal. See E.D. Cal. R. 130(b) (documents filed with the court must be presented legibly); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 640, 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, we do not consider Herrera’s challenge to the district court’s order dismissing his first amended complaint. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996) (interlocutory orders cannot be appealed after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, even if the failure is negligent or due to a mistake).

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