1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER VON SCHLOBOHM, Case No. 2:19-07358 DOC (ADS) i 12 Plaintiff, c 13 v. a ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR r FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., d Defendants. 15 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Christopher Von Schlobohm (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a 20 Complaint under

on August 23, 2019. [Dkt. No. 1]. Over the next 21 several months, Plaintiff filed multiple proofs of service and requests for default 22 judgment. [Dkt. Nos. 20, 23, 25, 27, 31, 42]. Plaintiff received multiple notices of 23 deficiency from the court for failure to comply with service requirements and provide 24 adequate proofs of service. [Dkt. Nos. 22, 29, 34, 48]. 1 The only defendants that have acknowledged service and appeared in this action 2 were dismissed without leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [Dkt. No. 44]. On January 15, 2020, the Court issued an Order to 4 Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute (“OSC”) as to 5 the remaining defendants, requiring a written response by January 22, 2020. [Dkt.

6 No. 52]. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. Plaintiff’s Request For Extension Of Time 9 After the deadline to respond to the OSC, on January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 10 Request for Extension of Time to file a response. [Dkt. No. 53]. Plaintiff asserted that 11 he did not receive the mailed OSC until January 22, 2020 and noted that he has not 12 been granted leave to electronically file. [Dkt. No. 53, pp. 1-2]. Plaintiff asserts he needs 13 an extension of time to file a response related to his proposition that “on September 16, 14 2019, the Court made an entry that my service of my complaint on August 26, 2019 was 15 sufficient such that the County of Los Angeles, Mercedes Mendoza, Adrian Hawkins, 16 and Kim Nemoy, defendant had failed to respond and were in default.” [Dkt. No. 53, p.

17 2]. Plaintiff did not request any specific additional amount of time. 18 Plaintiff’s request for extension of time is meritless. A review of the docket in this 19 case for September 16, 2019 reflects only that Plaintiff filed proofs of service of that date. 20 [Dkt. Nos. 12, 13, 14]. These proofs of service were followed by notices of deficiency for 21 service issues. [Dkt. Nos. 22, 29, 34, 48]. As such, Plaintiff has provided no good cause 22 to grant an extension of the time to respond to the OSC, nor has Plaintiff offered any 23 tenable argument that excuses failure to comply with service requirements duty to 24 prosecute the case. Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time is DENIED. 1 B. Dismissal 2 Dismissal of this action is warranted due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the 3 case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states, “if a defendant is not served within 90 4 days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own after notice to the 5 plaintiff — must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order

6 that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). Dismissal, rather 7 than ordering service be made within a specified time, is warranted because Plaintiff has 8 failed to provide proof of proper service despite repeated deficiency notices. 9 Moreover, the Court has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and 10 expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 11 for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash 12 R.R. Co.,

(1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 640 13 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court weighs the following factors when determining whether to 14 dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order or failure to prosecute: (1) the 15 public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 16 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy

17 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 18 sanctions. Pagtalunan,

. 19 The first, second, third, and fifth factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, 20 Plaintiff has failed to provide adequate proofs or service or respond to the Court’s 21 January 15, 2020 Order to Show Cause. This failure to prosecute the case has interfered 22 with the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation and the Court’s 23 need to manage its docket. See Yourish v. California Amplifier,

(9th 24 Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 1 dismissal.”). Second, Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption that defendants have 2 been prejudiced by this unreasonable delay. In re Eisen,

(9th Cir. 3 1994) (“The law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.”) (quoting Anderson v. Air 4 West, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976)). Third, there is no less drastic sanction 5 available as the Court has warned Plaintiff that proof of service was deficient and the

6 case would be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court has taken meaningful steps to explore 7 alternatives to dismissal. See Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) 8 (“The district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 9 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”). Finally, 10 although the fourth factor always weighs against dismissal, here Plaintiff’s failure to 11 discharge his responsibility to move the case towards a disposition outweighs the public 12 policy favoring disposition on the merits. Morris v. Morgan Stanley Co.,

, 13 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Although there is indeed a policy favoring disposition on the 14 merits, it is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a 15 reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.”). Having weighed 16 these factors, the Court finds that dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted

17 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules 3 || of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). Judgment is to be entered accordingly. All other 4 || motions/applications are denied as moot. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 4, 2020

8 THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER United States District Judge 9 10 || Presented by: 11 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth 12 ||} THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24