Beverly Jean Jennings v. City of Riverside et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00929
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-00929-SSS-SHKx Date December 15, 2025 Title Beverly Jean Jennings v. City of Riverside et al.

Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) DISMISSING THE INSTANT ACTION; AND (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE I. BACKGROUND On September 16, 2025, attorneys Jerry L. Steering and Brenton Whitney Aitken Hands (“Counsel”) filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Beverly Jean Jennings. [Dkt. No. 30, “Motion”]. On October 8, 2025, the Court granted the Motion and ordered Counsel to serve a copy of the Order on Plaintiff. [Dkt. No. 31]. On October 24, 2025, Counsel Jerry Steering filed a declaration indicating his office sent Plaintiff mail, but it was undeliverable and returned to his office. [Dkt. No. 32 at 2–3]. The mailing address of which mail was undeliverable is the same mailing address listed for Plaintiff in CM/ECF. Further, Counsel stated Plaintiff was unresponsive to communications from his office. [Id.] Subsequently, the Court ordered Plaintiff “to (1) file a notice indicating whether Plaintiff intends to proceed in this matter without counsel; and (2) provide the Court with a current mailing address.” [Dkt. No. 33]. Plaintiff was instructed to file her response no later than November 14, 2025. [Id.] Plaintiff was further warned that “[f]ailure to comply” would “result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action with prejudice.” [Id.] Additionally, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint by December 5, 2025, after the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [Dkt. No. 34]. Once again, Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would “result in sanctions including dismissal of the action with prejudice.” [Id.] To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to the Court’s order or an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. II. DISCISSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). Plaintiffs must prosecute their cases with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s OSC by the Court- ordered deadline. Before dismissing an action for either failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to follow the local rules, a court must weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (failure to follow local rules); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order). The Court need not explicitly weigh these factors. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53–54.

The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Both the Court and the public benefit from the expeditious resolution of this action because further delay will impede judicial efficiency. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“fail[ing] to pursue the case for almost four months” favors dismissal). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders without explanation. Further, an additional delay will prejudice Defendants. See Sw. Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Unreasonable delay is the foundation upon which a court may presume prejudice.”). Moreover, less drastic sanctions are not realistic. The Court has already issued two orders, which fulfilled its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). “[A] district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132–33 (9th Cir. 1987)). In sum, the Court concludes that four of the five factors weigh in favor of dismissing this action. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (affirming dismissal where three factors favored dismissal).

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. (JS-6)

IT IS SO ORDERED.