(PS) Douglas v. Sony Group Corp.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ANJON MARQUIS DOUGLAS, No. 2:23-cv-2280 DJC SCR PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SONY GROUP CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned for pretrial matters by Eastern District Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (IFP). ECF Nos. 1 and 2. On April 19, 2024, Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes was 21 unable to grant the pending IFP motion because plaintiff’s complaint was deficient. ECF No. 3 at 22 1. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Barnes dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 23 twenty-eight days of the date of the order. ECF No. 3 at 5. The order further cautioned that 24 failure to comply with the order may result in the recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. 25 Plaintiff did not file an amend complaint. 26 On September 17, 2024, about four months after the deadline had passed, the court issued 27 an order to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 28 prosecute. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s orders, nor taken any actions to 1 prosecute this case. 2 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 3 considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 6 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Here consideration of the 7 factors favors dismissal without prejudice because plaintiff has failed to comply and respond to 8 the Court’s attempts to move the case forward and has not provided an excuse for the lack of 9 compliance, attempts to use less drastic measures, such as issuing an order to show cause after the 10 passage of time to file an amended complaint proved unsuccessful, and the case simply cannot 11 move forward without plaintiff’s participation. 12 Because deficiencies in the complaint have not been resolved, the court will deny the 13 motion to proceed IFP. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting 14 Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)) (“‘A district court may 15 deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 16 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’”). 17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the IFP motion (ECF No. 2) be DENIED. 18 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of 19 prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local 20 Rule 110. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 23 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 24 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 25 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 2 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || DATED: October 15, 2024 fob— .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28