1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RYAN LYLE TAYLOR, RCase No. 5:20-01191 SVW (ADS) i 12 Plaintiff, c h 13 v. a ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR r FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 14 PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, dCOMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Ryan Lyle Taylor, a detainee at Southwest Detention Center, proceeding 20 pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint under

. [Dkt. No. 1]. 21 On January 7, 2021, following the statutorily required screening of the Complaint, see 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1), the Court issued an Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave 23 to Amend, finding that Plaintiff had failed to state any claim upon which relief can be 24 granted. [Dkt. No. 5]. This Order cautioned that the Complaint was devoid of any 1 sufficiently pled claim and subject to dismissal as such. [Id. at p. 5]. Plaintiff was 2 instructed to file a First Amended Complaint, or otherwise respond, by no later than 3 February 8, 2021. [Id.]. 4 On February 24, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case 5 Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with Court Orders. [Dkt.

6 No. 6]. This Order to Show Cause noted that the Court had not received an amended 7 complaint or other response and the time to do so had passed. [Id.]. Plaintiff was 8 instructed to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, 9 failure to obey court orders, and/or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 10 granted. [Id.]. This Order further cautioned that if Plaintiff did not file a response or 11 show cause why he is unable to do so by no later than March 17, 2021, the case may be 12 dismissed. [Id.]. 13 A second Order to Show Cause was issued on March 15, 2021 after mail was 14 returned as undeliverable. [Dkt. Nos. 7, 8]. This second Order cautioned that pro se 15 litigants are required to keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of their current 16 address and instructed Plaintiff to file a Notice of Change of Address or show cause by

17 no later than April 5, 2021. [Dkt. No. 8]. This Order further cautioned that failure to 18 timely respond may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply 19 with the Court’s Local Rules. [Id.]. 20 Despite repeated warnings that this case may be dismissed, to date, Plaintiff has 21 failed to respond to the Court’s Orders and failed to file a complaint that states a claim 22 upon which relief can be granted. 23 24 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Dismissal of this action is warranted due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the 3 case, comply with court orders, and comply with the Court’s Local Rules. The Court has 4 the inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by 5 dismissing actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to

6 comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962); 7 see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002). The Court weighs the 8 following factors when determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply 9 with a court order or failure to prosecute: (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious 10 resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 11 prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 12 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan,

. 13 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, 14 Plaintiff has failed to file a complaint that contains a claim upon which relief can be 15 granted, and failed to respond to the Court’s January 7, 2021, February 24, 2021, and 16 March 15, 2021 Orders. This results in a failure to prosecute the case, which has

17 interfered with the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation and 18 the Court’s need to manage its docket. See Yourish v. California Amplifier,

, 19 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 20 favors dismissal.”). Second, Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption that 21 defendants have been prejudiced by this unreasonable delay. In re Eisen,

, 22 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.”) (quoting 23 Anderson v. Air West, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976)). Third, there is no less 24 drastic sanction available as the Court has warned Plaintiff that the case would be 1 || dismissed. Accordingly, the Court has taken meaningful steps to explore alternatives to 2 || dismissal. See Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (“The district 3 || court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, 4 || but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”). Finally, although the fourth 5 || factor always weighs against dismissal, here Plaintiffs failure to discharge his 6 || responsibility to move the case towards a disposition outweighs the public policy 7 || favoring disposition on the merits. Morris v. Morgan Stanley Co.,

, 652 8 || (9th Cir. 1991) (“Although there is indeed a policy favoring disposition on the merits, it 9 || is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a 10 || reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.”). Having weighed 11 || these factors, the Court finds that dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of 12 || Civil Procedure 41(b) is warranted. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with 15 || court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judgment is to be 16 || entered accordingly. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 2 . Dated: April 23, 2021 fg £ LEO" THE HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON 20 United States District Judge 21 Presented by: 22 23 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth _ THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH 24 || United States Magistrate Judge