Johnny Nie v. County of San Bernardino

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-01224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNNY NIE, Case No. 5:25-cv-01224-PA-RAO

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On May 20, 2025, Plaintiff Johnny Nie (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed 20 a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s request to proceed 21 in forma pauperis was granted on May 23, 2025. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff brings his 22 lawsuit against the County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s 23 Department, and Deputy Sheriff Jesse Arias. Id. at 2-3. 24 On June 9, 2025, the Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 8.) The 26 Court’s screening order cautioned Plaintiff that failure to timely file a First Amended 27 Complaint (“FAC”) may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for 28 failing to diligently prosecute. (Id.) 1 On July 23, 2025, when Plaintiff did not file the FAC by the prescribed date 2 or otherwise respond to the screening order, the Court issued an order to show cause 3 in writing why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow 4 court orders (“OSC”). (Dkt. No. 10.) The deadline for responding to the Court’s 5 OSC was August 6, 2025, and Plaintiff has not responded. 6 For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action for failure to 7 obey court orders and to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (“Rule 41”) governs the dismissal of 10 federal actions. Rule 41(b) grants district courts authority to dismiss actions for 11 failure to comply with court orders or for failure to prosecute. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 12 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–63 (9th Cir. 1992); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 13 629–31 (1962). District courts may exercise their inherent power to control their 14 dockets by imposing sanctions, including, where appropriate, the dismissal of a case. 15 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. 16 A court must weigh five factors when determining whether to dismiss an action 17 for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders: 18 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 19 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 20 (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; 21 (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and 22 (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 23 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Dismissal is appropriate 24 where at least four factors support dismissal, or where three factors “strongly 25 support” dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Here, the first and second factors (the public’s interest in expeditious 27 resolution and the Court’s need to manage its docket) strongly favor dismissal. 28 “[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 1 dismissal.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action by not filing the FAC or 2 responding to the Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s “noncompliance has caused [this] action 3 to come to a complete halt, thereby allowing [him] to control the pace of the docket 4 rather than the Court.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990. Plaintiff’s inaction interferes with 5 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the Court’s need to 6 manage its docket. Accordingly, these two factors weigh strongly in favor of 7 dismissal. 8 The third factor (the risk of prejudice to the defendant) requires a defendant to 9 establish “that plaintiff’s actions impaired defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or 10 threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 11 at 642. “Limited delays and the prejudice to a defendant from the pendency of a 12 lawsuit are realities of the system that have to be accepted, provided the prejudice is 13 not compounded by ‘unreasonable’ delays.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th 14 Cir. 1984). However, “the risk of prejudice to the defendant is related to the 15 plaintiff’s reason for defaulting in failing to timely” act. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. 16 The better the reason, the less likely it is that the third factor will favor dismissal. See 17 id. (finding that the plaintiff’s “paltry excuse for his default on the judge’s order 18 indicate[d] that there was sufficient prejudice to Defendants from the delay that [the 19 third] factor also strongly favor[ed] dismissal”). “[T]he failure to prosecute 20 diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing 21 of actual prejudice to the defendant from the failure.” Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 22 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976); see also In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 23 1994) (quoting Anderson). Here, the failure to file the FAC or to communicate with 24 the Court indicates Plaintiff’s loss of interest in the matter. The Court finds that the 25 third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 26 The fourth factor (the availability of less drastic alternatives) also weighs in 27 favor of dismissal. The Court provided Plaintiff sufficient time to file the FAC or 28 respond to the Court’s OSC. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that a failure to file the 1 || FAC or respond to the OSC may result in dismissal, see Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, yet Plaintiff 2 || has not responded. Plaintiff's failure to participate in his own lawsuit supports that 3 || no lesser sanction will be effective. 4 Regarding the fifth factor, public policy generally favors the disposition of 5 || cases on their merits. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. However, it is the responsibility 6 || of the moving party to move the case toward a timely disposition on the merits, and 7 || to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics. Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 8 || F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). Because Plaintiff has failed to participate in his own 9 || lawsuit, it does not appear that retention of this case would increase the likelihood of 10 || the matter being resolved on its merits. Therefore, this factor weighs only slightly 11 || against dismissal. 12 Four factors favor dismissal, and one factor weighs slightly against dismissal. 13 || Accordingly, dismissal of this action without prejudice is appropriate. 14 | I. CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons discussed above, the Court dismisses this action without 16 || prejudice. 17 18 || DATED: August 19, 2025 | Che □ sible 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28