
    Delaney E. SMITH, Jr., Pharma D MD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-55189
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 23, 2016
    Delaney E. Smith, Jr,, Los Angeles, CA, Pro Se,
    Clayton C, Averbuck, Esquire, Attorney, Jennifer Gysler, Monroy, Averbuck and Gysler, Westlake Village, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, 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

Delaney E. Smith, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s January 3, 2014 order striking documents from the docket. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its inherent power to strike Smith’s filings from the docket because they were filed nearly thirteen months after the district court closed the case, and the district court had previously directed the district court clerk to reject any future filings that Smith made in the case. See id. (explaining that federal district courts have the “inherent power to control their docket” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider any of the district court’s prior rulings because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

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