Diana E. Belandres v. Department of Defense

Opinion

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

Case No. EDCV 21-1432 JGB (KKx) Date September 13, 2023 Title Diana E. Belandres v. Department of Defense

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

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

Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute (IN CHAMBERS) On May 11, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Diana E. Belandres (“Plaintiff” or “Belandres”) sought judicial review of Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) final decision in Belandres v. Dep’t of Defense, No. SF-0432-20-0629-I-1 by filing an appeal with the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.) On August 19, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued an order transferring this case to the Central District of California and on August 24, 2021, this case was assigned to this Court. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 16.) On August 30, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff pay the filing fee in full within 30 days. (Dkt. No. 19.) On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff timely paid the filing fee. Since then, this case has been dormant for almost two years. On August 15, 2023, the Court ordered parties to (1) inform the Court of the status of this action; and (2) recommend next steps to resolve this action no later than August 25, 2023. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 21.) On August 25, 2023, Respondent Department of Defense filed a status report in which it stated that Defendant’s counsel has been unable to contact Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s phone number is no longer in service. (Dkt. No. 22.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither continued to prosecute her case nor responded to the Court’s OSC.

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 has failed to respond to the Court’s OSC, and thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence and that dismissal is therefore appropriate. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.