Jones v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 SILAS JONES, No. 2:24-cv-00145-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, WITH COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants.

16 17 On February 28, 2025, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause, within 18 seven days, “why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and 19 failure to comply with a court order.” (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to that order 20 has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response or a request for an extension of time in 21 which to do so. 22 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the order to show cause, failure to serve 23 the defendants named in the corrected complaint filed on January 16, 2024 (Doc. No. 4), and 24 failure to file a status report regarding scheduling as required by the court’s order issued on 25 November 11, 2024 (Doc. No. 14), it appears that Plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute this 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 action but rather has abandoned the litigation.1 2 In determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, courts consider the 3 follow factors: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 6 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 7 1998). 8 In addition, the Local Rules of this court provide that the failure of a party to comply with 9 any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 10 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. A 11 party’s failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other 12 sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 13 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 14 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 15 complaint), as amended (May 22, 1992). 16 Here, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage 17 its docket, and the risk of prejudice to Defendants all support the imposition of the sanction of 18 dismissal here. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against 19 dismissal. However, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action makes disposition on the merits an 20 impossibility. Finally, with respect to availability of less drastic sanctions, the court has 21 considered alternative measures. The issuance of yet another order to show cause would be futile 22 under the circumstances presented. 23 Accordingly, this action will be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and 24 failure to comply with the court’s orders. 25 ///// 26 1 The docket in this case reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel filed an improper proposed substitution 27 of counsel form on March 7, 2024, purporting to substitute Plaintiff pro se in place of his counsel Attorney Patrick Buelna (Doc. No. 5), but the court did not approve that proposed substitution. 28 Thus, Plaintiff remains represented by counsel in this action. 1 For the reasons set forth above, 2 1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiffs failure to respond to 3 the February 28, 2025 order to show cause (Doc. No. 10), failure to prosecute this 4 action, and failure to comply with the court’s orders; and 5 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 6 * | Dated: _March 30, 2025 LY Oc 9 Dena Coggins 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28