Ronald Phillips v. County of Los Angeles

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD PHILLIPS, ) Case No. CV 20-1858-FMO (JPR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) 13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et ) al., ) 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding 17 pro se, filed a civil-rights action against Los Angeles County 18 and the Los Angeles County Public Defender in their official 19 capacity and Robert G. Noguchi, a deputy public defender, and 20 Does in their individual and official capacities, seeking 21 declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs. 22 (Compl. at 3, 6.)1 He was subsequently granted leave to proceed 23 in forma pauperis. 24 On April 1, 2020, the Court dismissed the Complaint with 25 leave to amend because it failed to state any claim. The Court 26 27 1 Because the Complaint is not consecutively paginated, the Court uses the pagination generated by its Case Management/ 28 Electronic Case Filing system. 1 1 warned Plaintiff that if he wished to pursue his claims, he had 2 to timely file an amended complaint or the lawsuit would likely 3 be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to 4 prosecute. He requested an extension of time to file his amended 5 complaint, which the Court granted; the amended complaint was due 6 August 21. To date he has neither filed an amended complaint nor 7 requested another extension of time to do so. 8 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 9 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 10 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. 11 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke 12 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 13 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 14 calendars of the District Courts.”). A court must consider “(1) 15 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 16 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 17 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 19 of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (citation 20 omitted). Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of 21 prejudice to the defendants that can be overcome only with an 22 affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff. See In re 23 Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 24 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 25 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has 26 offered no explanation for his failure to file an amended 27 complaint. Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of 28 prejudice to Defendants. No less drastic sanction is available, 2 Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim and cannot be 2} ordered served, and he is unable or unwilling to comply with the 3} Court’s instructions for fixing his allegations. Because none of 4] Plaintiff’s claims can be ordered served, the Court is unable to 5 || manage its docket. Although the fourth Carey factor weighs 6 || against dismissal — as it always does — together the other 7 || factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case 8 its merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-62 9} (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se 10 || civil-rights action for failure to timely file amended complaint 11 | remedying deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F. 12 || App’x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se 13 | civil-rights action for failure to state claim or timely file 14 || amended complaint). 15 ORDER 16 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to 17 | prosecute and failure to state a claim. 18 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 19 20 | parep: SePtember 15, 2020 /s/ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 21 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 22 || Presented by: 33 brendlate~ Jean Rosenbluth Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28