1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. CV 20-1724 JVS (MRW) 13 RONALD ROLLINGS, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Plaintiff, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 v. 16 WARDEN, 17 Defendant. 18

19 The Court dismisses this action without prejudice due to the failure 20 of a pro se litigant to amend his complaint or respond to court orders. 21 * * * 22 1. This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff is an inmate at 23 the federal prison facility at Terminal Island. He contends that 24 unidentified prison staff violated his rights by opening his “legal mail” and 25 allegedly withholding certain items from him. The complaint also includes 26 vague allegations about the denial of medical treatment. (Docket # 1.) 27 28 1 2. In February 2020, Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the 2 original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Judge Wilner 3 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The dismissal order noted, 4 among other defects, that Plaintiff failed to name any individual defendant 5 as liable for the alleged misconduct. To the extent Plaintiff sought to sue 6 the federal government in a Bivens-type action, though, sovereign 7 immunity likely barred his action. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to either 8 pay the federal court filing fee or submit the appropriate materials for a fee 9 waiver. (Docket # 7 at 1-2.) 10 3. Judge Wilner set a March 2020 deadline for Plaintiff to amend 11 his complaint (and submit the appropriate fee documentation) or 12 voluntarily dismiss the action. Plaintiff failed to file a timely response to 13 the order. 14 4. In April 2020, Judge Wilner issued an order to show cause why 15 the action should not be dismissed. The order gave Plaintiff until the end 16 of May 2020 to submit an appropriate response. The order specifically 17 warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation 18 of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Docket # 8.) 19 5. Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC. Indeed, Plaintiff has not 20 filed anything with the Court in this action since his initial complaint.1 21 * * * 22 6. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to 23 comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 24 the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the 25 Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962).

26 1 Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the Northern District of California; the action was transferred to the Central District shortly after filing. 27 Judge Wilner reviewed both the Court’s docket and the Bureau of Prison’s website to confirm that (a) Plaintiff is housed locally and (b) the Clerk is properly 28 serving Plaintiff at that local prison. 1 7. Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a court to dismiss a civil 2 action when a plaintiff has not filed a required pleading “after being given 3 leave to do so and has not notified the court of his intention not to file” that 4 document. Harris v. Magnum,

(9th Cir. 2017). 5 Rule 41(b) applies when a court “mandate[s] the filing” of a pleading and 6 “indicate[s] that failure to do so would result in dismissal” under the rule. 7 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 8 2019). 9 8. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 10 advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 11 court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 12 defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 13 Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition 14 of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in 15 its evaluation. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 16 9. In the present action, the Court finds dismissal of the action 17 without prejudice is appropriate. Plaintiff failed to respond to two orders 18 addressing serious defects with his complaint. Plaintiff’s refusal to do so 19 demonstrates that he has no interest in advancing the action here. 20 10. By contrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a 21 strong interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given 22 that Plaintiff effectively chose to abandon his case by failing to respond to 23 court orders, thereby preventing any feasible advancement of the case. 24 Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did not abide by the 25 the Court’s previous orders, no sanction short of dismissal will be effective 26 in moving this case forward. Carey,

. The Court finds 27 28 1 | that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Applied Underwriters, 2 |

. 3 11. Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without 4 || prejudice.? 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. [af i Ad 7 i wf 8 || Dated: July 02, 2020 9 HON. JAMES V. SELNA U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 10 i Presented by: 12 138 14} 4 HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 19 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 Dismissal under Rule 41(b) ordinarily “operates as an adjudication on the merits” of a claim. However, due to the ongoing coronavirus crisis, the 28 | Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the action without prejudice.