UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | S 6
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
Case No. 8:25-cv-01985-FWS-JDE Date: December 3, 2025 Title: Golbahar Imanpour v. Unite States Department of State et al. Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Rolls Royce Paschal N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER [18] On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff Golbahar Imanpour filed this case against various federal government defendants alleging that the government has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of her husband’s immigrant visa application. (Dkt. 1 (Complaint) 4 1.) Plaintiff filed proofs of service as to each defendant. (Dkts. 12-17.) On November 10, 2025, when the government did not respond and Plaintiff took no action, the court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution. (Dkt. 18 (““OSC’’).) The court set a response deadline of November 17, 2025, and specifically advised that “[flailure to file a timely and appropriate response to this Order may result in dismissal without further order or notice from the court.” (Ud. at 1.) Now, more than two weeks after the court’s deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the OSC, Plaintiff has filed nothing. (See generally Dkt.) What is more, the government has filed a Report Re Service “explaining that the government intends to contest service” and noting that “[o]n September 12, 2025, the [United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California] sent Plaintiff a letter’ explaining that “Plaintiff had not served the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail, and had not mailed it to the correct addressee,” and that “it was not clear whether Plaintiff had served the Attorney General,” and also “explained to Plaintiff how to rectify these deficiencies and serve the Defendants properly.” (Dkt. 19 & Ex. A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(4) (regarding procedure for serving United States government defendants). District courts “have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J S 6
Case No. 8:25-cv-01985-FWS-JDE Date: December 3, 2025 Title: Golbahar Imanpour v. Unite States Department of State et al. (9th Cir. 1992). When determining “whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, the court finds these factors support dismissal due to Plaintiffs failure to this case and comply with the OSC. As to the first factor, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation a/ways favors dismissal.” /d. at 642. The second factor also favors dismissal because “it is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” /d. When a fails to take action after filing proofs of service—by seeking default or taking other action if Plaintiff believed she completed proper service, or filing amended proofs of service if Plaintiff agreed with the government’s assessment that her prior service was not complete— “the action to come[s] to a complete halt,” which allows a plaintiff “to control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding that this factor favored dismissal when the plaintiffs had 60 days to file an amended complaint and instead tardily filed a motion for clarification); see Keawe v. Dept of Safety, 2024 WL 1495085, at *2 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1492630 (D. Haw. Apr. 5, 2024) (dismissing case without prejudice when failed to comply with court deadlines to file motion for default judgment, reasoning as to this factor, “Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders has interfered with the Court’s ability to manage its docket’). The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the government, is neutral given that it is whether the government has been properly served. Cf Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“To prove prejudice, a defendant must establish that plaintiff's actions impaired defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.”).
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J S 6
Case No. 8:25-cv-01985-FWS-JDE Date: December 3, 2025 Title: Golbahar Imanpour v. Unite States Department of State et al. The court finds the fourth factor also favors dismissal because the court has attempted less drastic alternatives, but they have been unsuccessful. The court gave Plaintiff ample time to seek default or other appropriate relief, and clearly informed Plaintiff that failure to respond to the OSC would result in dismissal without further notice or order. (OSC at 1); see Ferdik v. 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992) (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his or her failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”’); see also Alliant Credit Union v. Vessel EAGLE REST, 2010 WL 3746727, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010) (“The Court’s prior order warned Plaintiff that the failure to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal would result in the dismissal of the action.”); Keawe, 2024 WL 1495085, at *2 less drastic sanctions are not appropriate and would be futile given Plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the Court's prior orders.”’). Finally, the public policy favoring disposition on the merits generally weighs against dismissal, but “it logically rests upon an inherent presumption a litigant .. . has manifested a diligent desire to prosecute his or her claims.” Ewing v. Ruano, 2012 WL 2138159, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2012). Indeed, “it is the plaintiff's responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition.” Thomas v. Kernan, 2019 WL 8888200, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2019) (citing v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)). Therefore, “this factor ‘lends little support’ to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” Jn re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The court finds Plaintiff's failure to timely prosecute this case lessens the weight of the public policy favoring disposition on the merits. See Ewing, 2012 WL 2138159, at *2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | S 6
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
Case No. 8:25-cv-01985-FWS-JDE Date: December 3, 2025 Title: Golbahar Imanpour v. Unite States Department of State et al. Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Rolls Royce Paschal N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (INCHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER [18] On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff Golbahar Imanpour filed this case against various federal government defendants alleging that the government has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of her husband’s immigrant visa application. (Dkt. 1 (Complaint) 4 1.) Plaintiff filed proofs of service as to each defendant. (Dkts. 12-17.) On November 10, 2025, when the government did not respond and Plaintiff took no action, the court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution. (Dkt. 18 (““OSC’’).) The court set a response deadline of November 17, 2025, and specifically advised that “[flailure to file a timely and appropriate response to this Order may result in dismissal without further order or notice from the court.” (Ud. at 1.) Now, more than two weeks after the court’s deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the OSC, Plaintiff has filed nothing. (See generally Dkt.) What is more, the government has filed a Report Re Service “explaining that the government intends to contest service” and noting that “[o]n September 12, 2025, the [United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California] sent Plaintiff a letter’ explaining that “Plaintiff had not served the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail, and had not mailed it to the correct addressee,” and that “it was not clear whether Plaintiff had served the Attorney General,” and also “explained to Plaintiff how to rectify these deficiencies and serve the Defendants properly.” (Dkt. 19 & Ex. A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(4) (regarding procedure for serving United States government defendants). District courts “have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J S 6
Case No. 8:25-cv-01985-FWS-JDE Date: December 3, 2025 Title: Golbahar Imanpour v. Unite States Department of State et al. (9th Cir. 1992). When determining “whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, the court finds these factors support dismissal due to Plaintiffs failure to this case and comply with the OSC. As to the first factor, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation a/ways favors dismissal.” /d. at 642. The second factor also favors dismissal because “it is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” /d. When a fails to take action after filing proofs of service—by seeking default or taking other action if Plaintiff believed she completed proper service, or filing amended proofs of service if Plaintiff agreed with the government’s assessment that her prior service was not complete— “the action to come[s] to a complete halt,” which allows a plaintiff “to control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding that this factor favored dismissal when the plaintiffs had 60 days to file an amended complaint and instead tardily filed a motion for clarification); see Keawe v. Dept of Safety, 2024 WL 1495085, at *2 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1492630 (D. Haw. Apr. 5, 2024) (dismissing case without prejudice when failed to comply with court deadlines to file motion for default judgment, reasoning as to this factor, “Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders has interfered with the Court’s ability to manage its docket’). The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the government, is neutral given that it is whether the government has been properly served. Cf Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“To prove prejudice, a defendant must establish that plaintiff's actions impaired defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.”).
CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J S 6
Case No. 8:25-cv-01985-FWS-JDE Date: December 3, 2025 Title: Golbahar Imanpour v. Unite States Department of State et al. The court finds the fourth factor also favors dismissal because the court has attempted less drastic alternatives, but they have been unsuccessful. The court gave Plaintiff ample time to seek default or other appropriate relief, and clearly informed Plaintiff that failure to respond to the OSC would result in dismissal without further notice or order. (OSC at 1); see Ferdik v. 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992) (“[A] district court’s warning to a party that his or her failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”’); see also Alliant Credit Union v. Vessel EAGLE REST, 2010 WL 3746727, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010) (“The Court’s prior order warned Plaintiff that the failure to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal would result in the dismissal of the action.”); Keawe, 2024 WL 1495085, at *2 less drastic sanctions are not appropriate and would be futile given Plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the Court's prior orders.”’). Finally, the public policy favoring disposition on the merits generally weighs against dismissal, but “it logically rests upon an inherent presumption a litigant .. . has manifested a diligent desire to prosecute his or her claims.” Ewing v. Ruano, 2012 WL 2138159, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2012). Indeed, “it is the plaintiff's responsibility to move a case toward a merits disposition.” Thomas v. Kernan, 2019 WL 8888200, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2019) (citing v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)). Therefore, “this factor ‘lends little support’ to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” Jn re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The court finds Plaintiff's failure to timely prosecute this case lessens the weight of the public policy favoring disposition on the merits. See Ewing, 2012 WL 2138159, at *2. The court therefore finds this factor is neutral and does not preclude dismissal. In summary, on balance, the court finds the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263 (“Even if the prejudice factor as well as the fifth factor regarding the public policy favoring disposition on the merits both weighed against dismissal, they would not outweigh the other three factors that strongly support dismissal here.”). Consistent with the court’s statement, (OSC at 1), this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J S 6
Case No. 8:25-cv-01985-FWS-JDE Date: December 3, 2025 Title: Golbahar Imanpour v. Unite States Department of State et al. (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 41(b) permits dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with any order of court.”); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (courts may “act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute’”’) (cleaned up); Link v. Wabash 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of [their] failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”’); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.’’); v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming sua sponte dismissal prejudice “for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order’); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating “(district courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and “[i]n the exercise of that they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal’); see, e.g., v. Dept of Pub. Safety, 2024 WL 1495085, at *2 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1492630 (D. Haw. Apr. 5, 2024) (dismissing case without when plaintiff failed to comply with court deadline to file motion for default