1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN MATTHEW FINNEGAN, Case No. 21-cv-00823-BAS-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 PALM BEACH COUNTY ANIMAL

CONTROL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Sean Matthew Finnegan brought this action on April 27, 2021. (ECF 19 No. 1.) On August 4, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before August 20 25, 2021, why his action should not be dismissed for failure to complete service pursuant 21 to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 8.) The Court warned 22 Plaintiff that a failure to file an adequate response to the Court’s Order can result in the 23 Court dismissing the action. (Id.) 24 “District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, ‘[i]n the 25 exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . 26 dismissal of a case.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quoting 27 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A.,

(9th Cir. 1986)); accord Link v. 28 Wabash R.R.,

, 630–31 (1962) (holding courts are vested with an inherent 1 || power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition 2 ||of cases”). This inherent power exists independently of a district court’s authority to 3 || dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Link,

. 4 ||““Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be 5 ||imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik,

. 6 The circumstances in which a court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss an 7 || action include where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case or failed to comply with a 8 |}court order. Link,

; Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 989-90 (9th 9 || Cir. 1999). In determining whether to exercise this power, “the district court must weigh 10 || five factors including (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 11 || court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 12 || policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 13 || alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260—61 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

, 14 |} 1424 (9th Cir. 1986), and Thompson,

) (internal quotation marks 15 |}omitted). Although it is preferred, the district court is not required to “make explicit 16 || findings in order to show that it has considered these factors.” Ferdik, 963 F.3d at 1261. 17 Here, Plaintiff has failed to complete service or file an adequate response to this 18 ||Court’s Order to Show Cause—notwithstanding the Court’s clear admonition to Plaintiff 19 || that a failure to do so would result in dismissal. Having weighed the appropriate factors, 20 || the Court concludes that dismissing this case is warranted. See Ferdik,

- 21 22 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its 23 || entirety. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ) 27 || DATED: August 27, 2021 (uf wl A (Lohan 6 28 United States District Judge