Guillen v. Colombana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Erica Guillen, No. 2:19-cv-00655-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER v.

Ricardo Colombana and Mirella Colombana,

1S Defendants.

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend on October 10, 2019. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff was permitted 21 days to amend her complaint. No amended complaint has been filed. On April 12, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, and plaintiff has not responded. The court has considered (1) “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” (2) “the court’s need to manage its docket,” (3) “the risk of prejudice to the defendants,” (4) “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,” and (5) “the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Dahl vy. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996). With the exception of the fourth, these factors each favor dismissal. Plaintiff has not amended her complaint or responded to the order to show cause, and almost two years have passed since the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. This action is therefore dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). The clerk’s office is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2021.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE