1

2 JS-6 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 20-9007 JWH (MRW) 13 FRIDAY OMONIYI, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Petitioner, 15 v. 16 WILLIAM BARR, 17 Respondent. 18 19 The Court dismisses this action due to the failure of a pro se litigant 20 to respond to a court order. 21 * * * 22 1. Petitioner Friday Omoniyi is a detainee in ICE custody in 23 Georgia. He filed a “request for release due to risk factors for Covid-19” in 24 this district in a letter format. (Docket # 1.) The request was accompanied 25 by a declaration and “motion” for immediate release. (Docket # 2, 3.) 26 2. Although difficult to follow, Mr. Omoniyi’s papers referenced 27 the Fraihat class action pending in this judicial district (regarding 28 1 conditions of confinement of immigration detainees). The papers also 2 apparently sought his compassionate release from custody. (Id.) 3 3. The government filed an opposition (unprompted by this 4 Court). (Docket # 5.) The government argued that, for Mr. Omoniyi to 5 obtain relief from the Fraihat action, he “must have his claims presented 6 by class counsel” in that case, and cannot “opt out” of the class’s 7 procedures. (Id. at 2, 4.) 8 4. Alternatively, the government argued that Mr. Omoniyi’s case 9 is, in reality, a habeas corpus action under

. However, if 10 considered as a habeas petition, it was improperly filed in California rather 11 than in the district of his confinement in Georgia. (Id. at 5.) On those 12 bases, the government requested that the matter be dismissed or 13 transferred to a federal court in Georgia. 14 5. Magistrate Judge Wilner ordered Mr. Omoniyi to respond to 15 the government’s submission. Judge Wilner’s order explained the 16 government’s contentions in layman’s terms. It also specifically warned 17 Mr. Omoniyi that failure to respond would result in a recommendation of 18 dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 19 (Docket # 6.) 20 6. Petitioner’s response was due in mid-October 2020. However, 21 to date, he has filed nothing in response to the government’s dismissal 22 request or the magistrate judge’s order. 23 * * * 24 7. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 25 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a 26 habeas action.

; see also Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 27 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to 28 1 district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the 2 petitioner is not entitled to relief 3 8. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to 4 comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 5 the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the 6 Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962). 7 9. Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a court to dismiss a civil 8 action when a litigant has not filed a required pleading “after being given 9 leave to do so and has not notified the court of his intention not to file” that 10 document. Harris v. Magnum,

(9th Cir. 2017). 11 Rule 41(b) applies when a court “mandate[s] the filing” of a pleading and 12 “indicate[s] that failure to do so would result in dismissal” under the rule. 13 Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 14 2019). 15 10. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 16 advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 17 court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 18 defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 19 Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition 20 of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in 21 its evaluation. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 22 11. In the present action, the Court finds dismissal of the action 23 without prejudice is appropriate. Petitioner failed to respond to the 24 government’s colorable dismissal arguments regarding the defects with the 25 action. He also ignored a direct order from the Court requiring that 26 response. Plaintiff’s inability to participate meaningfully in the litigation 27 28 1 | or to follow the magistrate judge’s order demonstrates that he has no 2 | interest in advancing the action here. 3 12. contrast, the Court, the government, and the public have a 4 | strong interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given 5 | that Petitioner’s immigration-related action is almost certainly untenable 6 | for the reasons stated in the government’s dismissal papers. 13. Furthermore, because Petitioner is a pro se litigant who did not 8 | comply with the magistrate judge’s previous order, no sanction short of 9 | dismissal will be effective in moving this case forward. Carey,

| at 1440. The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). 11 | Applied Underwriters,

. 12 14. Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without prejudice 13 | pursuant to Rule 41.1 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 i 17 | Dated: December 21, 2020 ° 18 [ONNJOHN W. HOLCOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 Presented by: a1

23 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25 1 The Court exercises its discretion not to transfer the action to another federal district court. The Court has insufficient information about 26 | whether Petitioner already sought relief in another district. Additionally, because this Court likely does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims, the 27 | dismissal is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal under rule ordinarily “operates as an adjudication on the merits” of a claim unless court 28 | states otherwise).