1 2 JS-6

5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

Case No. CV 20-05023 VBF (MRW) 13 | FREDDIE DOSS, doa ORDER DISMISSING ACTION TS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 v. 16 | RALPH DIAZ, et al., Li Defendant. 18 19 The Court dismisses this action without prejudice due to the failure of a pro se litigant to amend his complaint or respond to court orders. kkk 22 1. This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff Doss formerly 28 was an inmate at the state prison in Lancaster, California. He alleges that 24 a prison psychologist and a member of the prison’s classification committee 25 improperly rejected his request for single-cell housing status. (Docket # 1 . at 4.) Plaintiff contends that this action violated his Eighth Amendment

28

1 right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and various state law 2 obligations. 3 2. In June 2020, Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the original 4 complaint pursuant to

(e) and 1915A. Judge Wilner 5 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The dismissal order noted, 6 among other defects, that Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to 7 establish that any party acted in a manner that was “deliberately 8 indifferent” to Plaintiff’s safety. To the extent that Plaintiff challenged his 9 housing determination, the Court informed Plaintiff that this was not 10 reviewable in federal court. Further, Plaintiff did not demonstrate that he 11 properly filed a state tort claim, which is a prerequisite to a lawsuit. 12 (Docket # 8.) 13 3. Judge Wilner gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 14 Plaintiff did so in July 2020. (Docket # 10.) However, Judge Wilner 15 concluded that the amended complaint was “virtually unchanged and read 16 almost word-for-word” from the original complaint. (Docket # 11 at 1.) The 17 amended complaint was again dismissed with leave to amend. 18 4. Judge Wilner set an August 20 deadline for Plaintiff to amend 19 his complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action. The order specifically 20 warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation 21 of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Docket # 11 22 at 2.) 23 5. Plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the order. He also 24 failed to file any updated or amended complaint. 25 * * * 26 6. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to 27 comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 28 1 the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the 2 Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962). 3 7. Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a court to dismiss a civil 4 action when a plaintiff has not filed a required pleading “after being given 5 leave to do so and has not notified the court of his intention not to file” that 6 document. Harris v. Magnum,

(9th Cir. 2017). 7 Rule 41(b) applies when a court “mandate[s] the filing” of a pleading and 8 “indicate[s] that failure to do so would result in dismissal” under the rule. 9 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 10 2019). 11 8. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 12 advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 13 court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 14 defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 15 Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition 16 of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in 17 its evaluation. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 18 9. In the present action, the Court finds dismissal of the action 19 without prejudice is appropriate. Plaintiff failed to make any meaningful 20 amendment to his defective complaint after receiving a detailed 21 explanation of those defects from the magistrate judge. Further, after 22 receiving leave to amend his complaint again, Plaintiff failed to respond at 23 all. Plaintiff’s refusal or inability to file a plausible complaint in light of 24 the court’s warnings demonstrates that he has no interest in advancing the 25 action here. 26 10. By contrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a 27 strong interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given 28 1 | that Plaintiff effectively chose to abandon his case by failing to respond to 2 | court orders, thereby preventing any feasible advancement of the case. 3 | Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did not abide by the 4 | the Court’s previous orders, no sanction short of dismissal will be effective 5 | in moving this case forward. Carey,

. The Court finds 6 | that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Applied Underwriters, 7 |

. 8 11. Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without 9 | prejudice.! 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 :

October 26, 2020 13 | Dated: _ HON. VALERIE BAKER 14 FAIRBANK SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

16 Presented by: Ti 18 / 19 | _. eg HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 20 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 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.