Marian M. HAWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel MONTGOMERY, Owner of San Bernardino R.V. Park in San Bernardino, CA; Lois Montgomery, Owner of San Bernardino R.V. Park in San Ber-nardino, CA;. Jack Cunningham, Offsite Manager of San Bernardino R.V. Park; LA Cumbre Management Company, Inc., Owned by Jack Cunningham-Whom Manages San Bernardino R.V. Park; San Bernardino R.V. Park, dba James Murdock Located in San Bernardino, CA; Sam Harsin, Onsite Manager of San Bernardino R.V. Park; Pamela Harsin, Onsite Manager of San Bernardino R.V. Park, Defendants-Appellees, 517 F. App'x 577

MEMORANDUM Marian M. Haworth appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her housing discrimination action for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Haworth’s action without prejudice because Haworth failed to file a third amended complaint after being given two extensions of time to do so and being warned that failure to do so might result in dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(

b) and affirming dismissal where three out of five factors supported it). Contrary to Haworth’s contention, the district court was not obligated to consider appointing a guardian ad litem before dismissing her action because there was insufficient evidence of mental incompetence, and the dismissal was without prejudice. See Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.2005)(a pro se civil litigant is “entitled to a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented”); Krain v.

Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir.1989)(a district court may dismiss without prejudice for failure to comply with an order when a substantial question exists regarding a pro se litigant’s mental competence). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not consider Haworth’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir.1996). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009)(per curiam).

Haworth’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.