Jailen Parks v. Chacano Christian

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 15, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04346
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAILEN PARKS, ) Case No. CV 19-4346-MCS (JPR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) 13 CHRISTIAN CHOCANO, ) ) 14 Defendant. ) ) 15 ) 16 Plaintiff originally filed this civil-rights action in May 17 2019. The Magistrate Judge twice dismissed it with leave to 18 amend before ordering his original Complaint and his subsequent 19 Supplement to it served on Defendant Christian Chocano in his 20 individual capacity only. While the Marshal was still trying to 21 effect service, Plaintiff filed another statement of allegations 22 in May 2020. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss what he 23 called the second amended complaint — the May 2020 filing — as 24 well as the entire action. On February 4, 2021, the Court 25 granted the motion to dismiss, ordering some claims dismissed 26 with prejudice and some with leave to amend. The Court gave 27 Plaintiff 28 days, or until March 4, 2021, to file a third 28 amended complaint and warned him that if he did not do so the 1 1 Court would “likely” dismiss the action for the reasons stated in 2 the Magistrate Judge’s various dismissal orders and for failure 3 to prosecute. To date Plaintiff has neither filed a TAC nor 4 requested an extension of time to do so. 5 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 6 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 7 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. 8 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke 9 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 10 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 11 calendars of the District Courts.”). A court must consider “(1) 12 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 13 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 14 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 15 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 16 of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (citation 17 omitted). Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of 18 prejudice to the defendant that can be overcome only with an 19 affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff. See In re 20 Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 21 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 22 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has 23 offered no explanation for his failure to file another amended 24 complaint. Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of 25 prejudice to Defendant. No less drastic sanction is available, 26 as the SAC and other filings fail to state a claim and cannot be 27 ordered served, and Plaintiff is unable or unwilling to comply 28 with the Court’s instructions for fixing his allegations. 2 1 |} Because none of his claims can be ordered served, the Court is 2\)/unable to manage its docket. Although the fourth Carey factor 3 weighs against dismissal — as it always does — together the other factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case its merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-62 6 (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se 7 || civil-rights action for failure to timely file amended complaint 8} remedying deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F. 9 App’ x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights action for failure to state claim or timely file 11 |} amended complaint). 12 ORDER 13 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to 14 |] prosecute and failure to state a claim.! 15 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 16 17] parep; March to, 2021 Hh L Soom MARK C. SCARSI 18 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 19) Presented by: 30 fu Prewhtatt~ Jean Rosenbluth Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 | 28 ' The Court has read and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s August 28 and December 16, 2019 dismissal orders.