1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SAMANTHA CARTER, RCase No. 2:19-07236-PA (ADS) i 12 Plaintiff, c h 13 v. a ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR r FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, et al., d Defendants. 15 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Samantha Carter, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. [Dkt. No. 1]. On October 10, 2019, the Court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed 20 by Defendants, dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend by no later than 21 November 9, 2019. [Dkt. No. 16]. On November 18, 2019, the Court issued an Order to 22 Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. [Dkt. No. 17]. 23 Despite warnings that that case may be dismissed, Plaintiff has not filed any response to 24 the October 10, 2019 Order Dismissing with Leave to Amend, or November 18, 2019 1 Order to Show Cause. The last filing Plaintiff submitted to the Court was on September 2 18, 2019. [Dkt. No. 12]. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Dismissal of this action is warranted due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the 5 case and comply with court orders. The Court has the inherent power to achieve the

6 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. 8 Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court weighs the following factors when 10 determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order or 11 failure to prosecute: (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; 12 (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; 13 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 14 of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. 15 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, 16 Plaintiff has failed to engage with this case in any way since September 18, 2019 and

17 failed to file an amended complaint in response to the Court’s October 10, 2019 Order 18 Dismissing with Leave to Amend or to the November 18, 2019 Order to Show Cause. 19 This failure to prosecute the case has interfered with the public’s interest in the 20 expeditious resolution of this litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket. See 21 Yourish v. California Amplifier,

(9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s 22 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). Second, 23 Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption that defendants have been prejudiced by 24 this unreasonable delay. In re Eisen,

(9th Cir. 1994) (“The law 1 || presumes injury from unreasonable delay.”) (quoting Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 2 || F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)). Third, there is no less drastic sanction available as the 3 || Court has warned Plaintiff multiple times that the case would be dismissed. 4 || Accordingly, the Court has taken meaningful steps to explore alternatives to dismissal. 5 Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (“The district court need 6 exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 7 || explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”). Finally, although the fourth factor 8 || always weighs against dismissal, here Plaintiff's failure to discharge her responsibility to 9 || move the case towards a disposition outweighs the public policy favoring disposition on 10 || the merits. Morris v. Morgan Stanley Co.,

(9th Cir. 1991) (“Although 11 || there is indeed a policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the 12 || moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from 13 || dilatory and evasive tactics.”). Having weighed these factors, the Court finds that 14 || dismissal of this action with prejudice is warranted. 15 || WI. CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 17 || Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: January 2, 2020 hide se 20 i Wie PERCY ANDERSON 21 United States District Judge 22 || Presented by: 23 ||____/s/ Autumn D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 24 || United States Magistrate Judge