
    Margarito VILLASEÑOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLINTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-56719.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 23, 2013.
    Margarito Villasenor, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Elizabeth Angres, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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 Margarito Vil-laseñor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his hand injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order and failure to prosecute); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rules). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Villaseñor’s action with prejudice after Villaseñor failed to take any action for more than one year. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (explaining that a court must weigh the same five factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to follow a local rule was an abuse of discretion).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Villaseñor’s motion for reconsideration because Villaseñor failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Villaseñor’s request for an order directing his prison facility to provide him access to the law library, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

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