Owens v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Opinion

* * *

RICKIE JAMES OWENS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01517-BNW

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

et al., Defendants. On September 11, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his complaint. ECF No. 5. Although the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, it allowed Plaintiff leave to amend and gave him until October 11, 2024 to file an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline and to date has not filed an amended complaint. As a result, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice. The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action on this ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less-drastic alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits— weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether less-drastic alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the Court’s need to consider dismissal. Courts “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed without an operative complaint, the only alternative is to enter another order setting another deadline. The circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs additional time. Therefore, setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. In balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that dismissal is proper where at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s amended complaint deadline. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: October 16, 2024 Li gan bes WERE BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE