Free Now Foundation, A.T., by and through his parent P.H., and P.H. v. Poway Unified School District, and Does 1–25 inclusive

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03452
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREE NOW FOUNDATION, a California Case No.: 25-cv-3452-AJB-MSB non-profit; A.T., a minor, by and through 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND his parent P.H.; and P.H. an individual, DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S 13 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO DISMISS 14 v. (Doc. No. 8) 15 POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL 16 DISTRICT, a public school district in San Diego County, California; and DOES 17 1–25 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On April 6, 2026, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why Plaintiff P.H. 21 should be permitted to proceed by pseudonym. (Doc. No. 9.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs 22 to respond to the order to show cause, in writing, by no later than April 13, 2026. (Id.) The 23 Court ordered Plaintiffs to address the following factors: “(1) the severity of the threatened 24 harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous 25 party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” (Id. (quoting Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced 26 Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)).) Plaintiffs did not respond to the order 27 to show cause. (See generally Docket.) 28 Because Plaintiffs did not respond to the order to show cause, the Court issued an 1 order requiring Plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint naming Plaintiff P.H. (Doc. No. 2 11.) The Court required the amended complaint be filed by no later than May 6, 2026. (Id.) 3 The Court cautioned Plaintiffs that failure to file an amended complaint may result in the 4 Court dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice. (Id.) To date, Plaintiffs have not 5 filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s orders. (See generally 6 Docket.) 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a defendant may move for 8 dismissal of an action for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules 9 or any order of court.” Although Rule 41(b) provides for dismissal on the motion of the 10 defendant, the court can also dismiss an action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 11 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962); see also Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 434 F.2d 281, 12 283–84 (9th Cir. 1970) (“It is well settled in this circuit that a district court has power to 13 dismiss an action for want of prosecution on its own motion, both under Rule 41(b) . . . and 14 under its local rule, or even in the absence of such rules.”) The permissive language of 15 Rule 41—that defendant “may” move for dismissal—does not limit the court’s ability to 16 dismiss sua sponte if the defendant makes no motion for dismissal. Link, 370 U.S. at 630. 17 The court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases 18 by dismissing actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to 19 prosecute or for failure to comply with a court order. See id. (“The authority of a court to 20 dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent 21 power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to 22 manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of 23 cases.”); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Yourish v. 24 California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir.1999). 25 Here, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this Court’s order requiring them to file 26 an amended complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to either of the Court’s 27 previous orders indicates to the Court that Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims. 28 Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1 |} 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The district court has the inherent power sua sponte to dismiss 2 ||a case for lack of prosecution.”); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as 3 amended (May 22, 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district 4 || court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”).' The Clerk 5 Court is directed to close this matter. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: May 7, 2026 8 9 teeeag Li 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ©

27 ||! On April 3, 2026, Defendant Poway Unified School District filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) an 12(b)(6). (Doc. NO. 8.) In light of the dismissal of this matter, 28 || Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. 25-cv-3452-AJB-AHG