Tracy Zimberg v. City of Long Beach, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-06206
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11

12 TRACY ZIMBERG, No. 2:25-cv-06206-BFM

13 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 14 v. FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY 15 CITY OF LONG BEACH, et al., WITH COURT ORDERS

16 Defendants.

19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff Tracy Zimberg filed a Complaint alleging civil 22 rights violations against the City of Long Beach and individual police officers 23 employed by the city. (ECF 1.) On October 15, 2025, the Court issued an Order 24 to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and 25 ordered Plaintiff to respond by October 22, 2025. (ECF 4.) Plaintiff has not 26 responded to the Court’s Order. 27 28 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a 4 plaintiff’s action because of his or her failure to prosecute or to comply with court 5 orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 6 (1962) (holding that a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is 7 necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to 8 avoid congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 9 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a district court may dismiss an 10 action for failure to comply with any order of the court). 11 In determining whether to dismiss this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to 12 prosecute or to comply with court orders, the Court must consider the following 13 five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 14 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 15 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the 16 availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th 17 Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also In re 18 Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d 19 at 1260-61 (failure to comply with court orders). 20 The first two factors—the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 21 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh in favor of 22 dismissal. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s October 15, 2025, Order. 23 (ECF 4.) Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders hinders 24 the Court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and indicates that 25 Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently. 26 The third factor—prejudice to defendants—also weighs in favor of 27 dismissal. A rebuttable presumption of prejudice to defendants arises when a 28 plaintiff unreasonably delays prosecution of an action. Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1452- 1 53. Nothing suggests that such a presumption is unwarranted in this case. 2 The fourth factor—public policy in favor of deciding cases on their 3 merits—ordinarily weighs against dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility, 4 however, to move its case toward a disposition at a reasonable pace and to avoid 5 dilatory and evasive tactics. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley Co., 942 F.2d 648, 6 652 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not discharged this obligation despite having 7 been instructed on these responsibilities and granted sufficient time in which to 8 discharge them. (See ECF 4.) Under these circumstances, the public policy 9 favoring resolution of disputes on the merits does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure 10 to comply with court orders, or to file responsive documents within the time 11 granted. 12 The fifth factor—availability of less drastic sanctions—weighs in favor of 13 dismissal. The Court attempted to avoid dismissal when it issued its October 14 15, 2025, Order, giving Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why this case 15 should not be dismissed. Nonetheless, as of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has 16 failed to take any action or otherwise respond to that Order. The Court cannot 17 move the case toward disposition without Plaintiff's compliance with court 18 orders or participation in this litigation. 19 Taking the above factors into account, dismissal for failure to prosecute 20 and to follow court orders is appropriate. Such a dismissal, however, should not 21 be entered unless Plaintiff has been notified that dismissal is imminent. See W. 22 Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir. 1990). In 23 this case, Plaintiff was cautioned about the possibility of dismissal in the Court’s 24 October 15, 2025, Order. (ECF 4.) 25 26 27 28 1 III. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice 4 || under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply 5 || with Court orders. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court 6 || shall close this action. 7 8 || DATED: November 3, 2025 ling 9 10 BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28