David Rivas Ceja v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 30, 2022
• Docket: 8:22-cv-01005
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-01005-FWS-ADS Document 5 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:14

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 DAVID RIVAS CEJA, Case No. 8:22-01005 FWS (ADS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY 14 UNKNOWN, WITH COURT ORDERS

15 Defendant.

16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff David R. Ceja, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 19 complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 10, 2022. (Dkt. No. 1.) 20 The Clerk of Court notified Plaintiff that he had neither paid the filing fee nor filed a 21 Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP Request”). (Dkt. No. 2.) On July 5, 2022, 22 after nearly two months had passed since Plaintiff filed the Complaint, the Court 23 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 24 prosecute because of his failure to pay the filing fee or file an IFP Request (“Order to Case 8:22-cv-01005-FWS-ADS Document 5 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:15

1 Show Cause”). (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff was given the option to pay the filing fee or file an 2 IFP Request. (Id.) The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order to 3 Show Cause may result in his case being dismissed. (Id.) Despite these warnings, 4 Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, paid the filing fee, or filed 5 an IFP Request. Plaintiff has never communicated with the Court since he filed the 6 Complaint.

7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 The Court has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious 9 disposition of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. See Link v. Wabash R.R. 11 Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th 12 Cir. 2002). Five factors are weighed in determining whether to dismiss an action for 13 failure to comply with a court order or failure to prosecute: (1) the public’s interest in 14 the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 15 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 16 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 17 at 642. 18 III. DISCUSSION

19 Having weighed the five factors, the Court finds the first, second, third, and fifth 20 factors weigh in favor of dismissing this action. As to the first and second factors, 21 Plaintiff’s failure to engage with this case and file a response to the Court’s Order to 22 Show Cause, pay the filing fee, or file an IFP Request has interfered with the public’s 23 interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation, as well with the Court’s need to 24 manage its docket. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“the

2 Case 8:22-cv-01005-FWS-ADS Document 5 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:16

1 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”). As to 2 the third factor, Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption that the defendant has 3 been prejudiced by this unreasonable delay. Moneymaker v. Coben (In re Eisen), 31 4 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The law presumes injury from unreasonable 5 delay.”) (quoting Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)). As to 6 the fifth factor, there is no less drastic sanction available as Plaintiff has had at least two

7 opportunities to pay the filing fee or file an IFP Request and with ample time to do so. 8 Accordingly, the Court has taken meaningful steps to explore alternatives to dismissal. 9 See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The district court need 10 not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 11 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”). Finally, although the fourth factor 12 always weighs against dismissal, Plaintiff’s failure to discharge his responsibility to 13 move the case towards a disposition outweighs the public policy favoring disposition on 14 the merits. Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) 15 (“Although there is indeed a policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the 16 responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, 17 and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.”). Having weighed these factors, the 18 Court finds that dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted.

19 // 20 // 21 // 22 23 24

3 ase 8:22-cv-01005-FWS-ADS Document5 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4of4 Page #:17

1|)/IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute 3 ||and comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 || Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 30, 2022 8 Leod LS flame THE HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER 9 United States District Judge 10 11 || Presented by: 12 13 ||_____/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 14 || United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24