
    Neway MENGISTU, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Morton LA KRETZ, an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-56860
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 27, 2017
    Neway Mengistu, Pro Se
    Lorraine Anderson, Attorney, Law Offices of Lorraine Anderson, Torrance, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Neway Mengistu appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his housing discrimination action sua sponte for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed Mengistu’s action with prejudice for failure to prosecute after Mengistu did not appear on time at a scheduling conference. The district court failed to consider the adequacy of less drastic sanctions, such as dismissal without prejudice. See id. (“A district court abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[Dismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.”). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”); Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth limited exceptions). Accordingly, Mengis-tu’s request to supplement the appellate record with documents not presented to the district court, filed June 12, 2015, is denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     