MEMORANDUM **
David Amezcua appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Amezcua’s action for repeatedly failing to comply with the court’s orders to file a joint report under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), despite being warned that the failure to do so could lead to dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Amezcua’s motion for reconsideration because Amezcua 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) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Amezcua’s application for default and default judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a)-(b); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether to enter default judgment).
Amezcua’s contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction *313based on diversity is unpersuasive because the district court had federal question jurisdiction as Amezcua alleged claims arising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1381 (federal question jurisdiction).
In light of our conclusion regarding the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply -with court orders, we do not consider Amezcua’s contentions concerning the merits of his case.
AFFIRMED.