1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEIGH GLASS, Case No. 16-cv-02142-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. 10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., Defendants. 12

13 This case has been inactive since May 9, 2018, when pro se plaintiff Leigh Glass filed a 14 || case management statement asking that “scheduling be postponed” and “setting a trial date be 15 |} postponed,” to allow further attempts at settlement. Dkt. No. 61 at 4. Consequently, on 16 || September 13, 2019, the Court issued an order for plaintiff Glass to show cause why the case 3 17 should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute. 18 |} Dkt. No. 63. The deadline for a response was September 25, 2019. No response has been filed. 19 Plaintiff has failed to show any cause why the case should not be dismissed and she 20 || appears to have abandoned the case. While the Court favors the disposition of cases on the merits, 21 || it has considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States Postal Service,

, 22 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and finds that dismissal here is warranted by the circumstances. The case is 23 || dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and the file is closed. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: October 7, 2019 26 27 28 JAMES/PONATO- United Ptates District Judge