Green v. California Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Janet Green, No. 2:18-cv-02962-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER v.

California Department of Corrections, et al.,

1S Defendants.

Jack Duran was specially appointed in this case to assist plaintiff Janet Green in preparing and filing an amended complaint. ECF No. 8. The court also set a deadline for the filing of an amended complaint and extended that deadline. ECF No. 10. No amended complaint has been filed. The court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on April 12, 2021. ECF No. 11. Mr. Duran reports that his client has not responded to his inquiries and has not provided necessary documents. ECF No. 12.

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 v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff appears unable or unwilling to move this case forward despite Mr. Duran’s appointment. This court must manage its docket and this case, which has now been pending for several years without progress.

The court has also extended deadlines and warned that the action may be dismissed, but without response. If this action were eventually brought to discovery and trial, the defendants would be prejudiced by plaintiffs delays. These factors all weigh in favor of dismissal. The public policy in favor of resolving this case on its merits weighs against dismissal, but at this stage, such a resolution appears unlikely.

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. [\ (] ( ti / { q_/

CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE