
    Douglas KISAKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-55649
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 26, 2016
    Douglas Kisaka, Pro Se.
    Bryan Joel Freedman, Esquire, Bradley Howard Kreshek, Attorneys, Freedman and Taitelman, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas Kisaka appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising various incidents that occurred on the University of Southern California’s campus. 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 court orders. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 883 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kisaka’s action after Kisaka repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, meet deadlines, or appear at hearings, despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing the five factors the district court must weigh before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court order). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Kisaka’s action' for failure to comply with court orders, we do not consider Kisaka’s challenges to the district court’s intérlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[IJnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Kisaka’s request for judicial notice, filed on April 9,2015, is denied.

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