Ecasali v. McMillin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOUREDDINE ECASALI, Case No. 24-cv-02489-BAS-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 SCOTT MCMILLIN, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17

18 Plaintiff filed suit against eighteen Defendants, both corporate and individual, on 19 December 30, 2024, alleging violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act, the California 20 Fair Housing Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On March 3, 2025, the 21 Court issued an Order which, inter alia, dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend for 22 failure to state a claim and directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by March 24, 23 2025. (ECF No. 4.) On April 28, 2025, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to 24 show cause by May 2, 2025, as to why this case should not be dismissed, and warned that 25 failure to file an adequate response by that deadline would result in dismissal of the action. 26 (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court. 27 District courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets, including dismissing 28 cases for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1 || 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). This inherent power exists independently of a district court’s 2 || authority to dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Link v. Wabash 3 ||R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32 (1962). “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty 4 therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 5 |} 1260. 6 The circumstances in which a court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss an 7 ||action include where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case, failed to comply with a 8 || court order, or engaged in judge shopping. Link, 370 U.S. at 630. In determining whether 9 || to exercise this power, the district court must weigh five factors: (1) the public’s interest in 10 || expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s docket management needs, (3) the risk 11 || of prejudice to defendants, (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 12 || and (5) availability of less drastic alternatives. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. Although it 13 preferred, the district court is not required to “make explicit findings in order to show 14 || that it has considered these factors.” /d. at 1261. 15 More than nine weeks have passed since the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend her 16 ||Complaint, and over six weeks have elapsed since the deadline to do so. Moreover, the 17 ||deadline to show cause has now expired. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended 18 |}complaint, nor has she requested an extension of time in which to do so. “The failure of 19 |/the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the 20 ||complaint or by indicating to the court that [she] will not do so—is properly met with the 21 ||/sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th 22 || Cir. 2004). Having weighed the appropriate factors, the Court concludes that dismissing 23 case is warranted. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. 24 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 25 || Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 || DATED: May 7, 2025 yatta Bihar Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge £2x.[nited States District Court