1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MICHAEL A. SLAWSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-01356-JVS (GJS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed pro se a civil-rights action under 42

. His civil-rights claims arise from an involuntary psychiatric hold on 19 him effected by the Los Angeles Police Department. On September 18, 2020, after 20 screening the Complaint under

(e)(2), the District Judge dismissed 21 the Complaint with leave to amend because, among other deficiencies, it failed to 22 state any claim upon which relief could be granted. [Dkt. 11.] Plaintiff was ordered 23 to file an amended complaint no later than October 21, 2020, 2020, and was warned 24 that failure to do so could result in dismissal of his lawsuit for the reasons stated in 25 the dismissal. 26 Rather than complying with the Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed a “Response” on 27 October 21, 2020 [Dkt. 12], stating that he is unable to comply with the Court’s 28 1 2 no specific relief was requested, the Court construed Plaintiff’s “Response” as an 3 application for leave to exceed the page limit and file his First Amended Complaint 4 past the October 21, 2020 deadline. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file his First 5 Amended Complaint, limited to twenty-five pages, no later than November 20, 6 2020. [Dkt. 13.] The November 6 Order again warned Plaintiff that his failure to 7 rectify the deficiencies discussed in the Order would result in the case being 8 dismissed under Rule 41(b). 9 To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an 10 additional extension of time to do so. The dismissal order and the subsequent order 11 granting Plaintiff additional time to file his First Amended Complaint was sent to 12 his address of record and was not returned as undeliverable. 13 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants federal district 14 courts the authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. 15 Wabash R. Co.,

(1962). In determining whether dismissal for 16 lack of prosecution is proper, a court must weigh several factors, including: “(1) the 17 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 18 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant[]; (4) the public policy 19 favoring disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability of less drastic 20 sanctions.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 21 Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant 22 that can be overcome only with an affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff. 23 See In re Eisen,

(9th Cir. 1994). 24 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors militate in favor of 25 dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has offered no explanation for his failure to file an 26 amended complaint especially considering that the Court provided Plaintiff 27 additional time to do so. Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice to 28 Defendants. No less drastic sanction is available, as the Complaint fails to state a 1 || clarm and should not be ordered served; as a result, the Court is unable to manage its 2 || docket. 3 Although the fourth Carey factor weighs against dismissal—as it always does 4 || —together the other factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case 5 || onits merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (as 6 || amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights action for failure to timely file 7 || amended complaint remedying deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn,

|| App’x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights action for 9 || failure to state claim or timely file amended complaint). 10 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that this case is 11 || dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 12 || Procedure for lack of prosecution. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 C 7 / ) 4 16 || DATED: December 04, 2020 Z eee | pre 7 SAMES V. SELNA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 || Presented by: 20 TT 21 97 || GAIL J. STANDISH 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28