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. SA CV 19-2051 DSF (MRW) 13 SALVADOR CASTRO, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T, et al., 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 The Court dismisses this action due to the failure of a pro se litigant 21 to amend his complaint or respond to court orders. 22 * * * 23 1. This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff Castro formerly 24 was a pretrial inmate at a local jail in Orange County, California. He 25 alleged that he was denied access to jail programs based on his sexual 26 orientation and his placement in a protective housing unit. (Docket # 1.) 27 Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed for failure to plead facts 28 sufficient to state a plausible claim. (Docket # 4.) 1 2. Plaintiff subsequently submitted a more detailed First 2 Amended Complaint. (Docket # 5.) Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the 3 pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Magistrate Judge Wilner ordered 4 the amended complaint to be served on the county sheriff in his official 5 capacity. (Docket # 6-8.) 6 3. The sheriff moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on 7 various grounds. (Docket # 12.) In June 2020, Magistrate Judge Wilner 8 issued a decision granting the motion and dismissing the First Amended 9 Complaint with leave to amend. (Docket # 20.) The order explained the 10 defects with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. It also specifically 11 warned Plaintiff that failure to file a new complaint would result in a 12 recommendation of dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil 13 Procedure 41(b). 14 4. Plaintiff asked for and received two extensions of time to 15 attempt to amend the complaint. (Docket # 23, 24, 26, 27.) Plaintiff’s 16 extended amendment deadline expired in late September 2020. However, 17 Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint. Further, although Plaintiff’s action 18 sought to challenge conditions of confinement at the jail facility, Plaintiff 19 has apparently been out of custody since May 2020. (Docket # 21.) 20 5. In October 2020, Judge Wilner ordered Plaintiff to show cause 21 why the action should not be dismissed. The OSC again informed Plaintiff 22 of the consequences of failing to file an amended complaint. (Docket # 28.) 23 Plaintiff failed to file any response to the OSC. 24 * * * 25 6. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to 26 comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 27 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 concludes that dismissal of the 19 action is appropriate. Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint after 20 receiving an explanation of its problems from the magistrate judge. 21 Further, Plaintiff did not respond to an order to show cause triggered by 22 his failure to file a timely amended complaint. Plaintiff’s inability to either 23 file a valid complaint or follow the magistrate judge’s orders demonstrates 24 that he has no interest in advancing the action here. 25 10. By contrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a 26 strong interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given 27 that Plaintiff effectively chose to abandon his case by failing to respond to 28 1 | court orders. Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did 2 | not comply with the magistrate judge’s previous orders, no sanction short 3 | of dismissal will be effective in moving this case forward. Carey,

| at 1440. The Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate under 5 | Rule 41(b). Applied Underwriters,

. 6 11. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) ordinarily “operates as an 7 | adjudication on the merits” of aclaim. Therefore, the present action is 8 | DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | DATED: December 8, 2020 | . 0 fe = 11 Honowable Dales Tischer 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 | Presented by: 15 a HON. MICHAELR. WILNER 18 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 26 at 28