1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY L. MOURNING Case No. 21-cv-01396-BAS-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE 14 MILDRED S. BATEMAN, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action under the 18 Federal Declaratory Judgment Act,

, et seq., alleging, in essence, that 19 Defendants fraudulently represented to a United States District Court that Plaintiff’s name 20 is “Jeffrey Lee Whitetower,” whom Plaintiff alleges is listed on the “national most wanted” 21 list “as a serial rapist.” (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On September 7, 2021, this Court dismissed 22 the Complaint with leave to amend, concluding that Plaintiff failed to comply with the 23 pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule 8”) given the disjointed 24 and incomplete nature of his allegations and that Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim 25 for relief. (Dismissal Order, ECF No. 4.) Notably, the Court gave Plaintiff until October 26 5, 2021 to file an amended pleading. (Id.) October 5, 2021 came and went, yet Plaintiff 27 did not submit an amended complaint. 28 1 On October 14, 2021, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show why this case should not 2 be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for his failure to follow the Dismissal Order. 3 (Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 6.) Specifically, the Court directed Plaintiff either to file 4 an amended complaint or seek an extension to file an amended complaint by no later than 5 November 15, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff has failed to do so. Instead, he sent the Court a letter, 6 which it construes as a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the 7 District of Columbia. (Letter, ECF No. 8.)1 8 A district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s action for his failure to prosecute or failure 9 to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (holding 11 that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court). 12 “Dismissals under Rule 41(b) . . . operate as adjudications on the merits unless the court 13 specifies otherwise.” Costello v. United States,

(1961). 14 Before dismissing the action under Rule 41(b), the court must consider: 15 (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 defendants; (4) the 16 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring 17 disposition of cases on their merits.

18

19 Pagtalunan,

. 20 On balance, these factors decisively favor dismissal. The first and second factor 21 favor dismissal because nearly two months have passed since the Court first notified 22 Plaintiff of the procedural and substantive defects in his action. See Buckelew v. Gore, No. 23 20-CV-00835-BAS-AGS,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020). Instead of 24

25 1 Plaintiff fashions the letter as a “Letter Motion in lieu of a More Formal Motion for Change of 26 Venue Due to Multiple Conflicts of Interest.” (Letter 1.) As best this Court can tell, he seeks a transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on the ground that the allegations in his 27 now-dismissed Complaint unearth a scheme by Defendants that purportedly renders them a threat to national security. (Id. 1–2.) Plaintiff asks that this matter be “turned over to the United States Department 28 1 ||acknowledging this Court’s Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff filed a letter seeking transfer 2 ||to a different venue, despite there being no operative pleading. The fourth factor also 3 || favors dismissal. As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the imposition of monetary 4 ||sanctions would be “inappropriate and likely ineffective” and “would not remedy 5 || Plaintiff's lack of participation.” Johnson v. Pamplin, No. 17-CV-00560-BAS-BLM, 2019 6 || WL 494630, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2019). Furthermore, this Court already sought, 7 || unsuccessfully, a less drastic remedy by ordering Plaintiff to show cause why his action 8 ||should avoid dismissal. See Ferdik,

(holding that ‘“‘a court’s warning to 9 ||a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the 10 || ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement”). Because Plaintiff neither has complied with 11 || this Court’s order to file an amended pleading nor responded to its Order to Show Cause, 12 ||the Court finds that more attempts of less drastic alternatives would be futile. The third 13 || factor is neutral, at this early stage of the litigation. C_f' Ferdik,

(“Without 14 knowing who the defendants are . . . [the court is] hard pressed to determine how [the 15 plaintiff's] failure to amend put them at a disadvantage.”) The fifth factor weighs against 16 dismissal, but that factor is outweighed by the first, second, and fourth factors, which all 17 || weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. 18 Dismissal of this action is warranted for Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with 19 court orders. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 / yy 22 || DATED: November 22, 2021 ( itl A (Liphan 6 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28