1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TONY BLACKMAN, Case No. 21cv0923-LAB (BGS) CDCR #V-22349, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, 13 FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN vs. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 14 ORDER GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff Tony Blackman, a state prisoner proceeding pro 19 se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

in the Eastern District 20 of California. (Dkt. 1). On May 14, 2021, the case was transferred to this District 21 pursuant to

(a) following a determination that venue was improper 22 for Blackman’s claims in the Eastern District. (Dkt. 6). The Complaint was 23 accompanied by a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. 2). 24 On July 6, 2021, the Court denied Blacman’s IFP motion as barred by 28

(g), after finding he had at least six prior prisoner civil actions 26 dismissed on the grounds they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim 27 upon which relief may be granted. (Dkt. 9). This action was dismissed without 28 prejudice for Blackman’s failure to pay the civil and administrative filing fee, and 1 was granted leave until August 20, 2021, to pay the required fee. (Id. at 6). The 2 Court instructed him that if he failed to either pay the filing fee on or before that 3 date or seek an extension of time to do so, it would result in the entry of a final 4 judgment of dismissal of this action. (Id.). 5 Over three months have elapsed since the August 20, 2021 deadline and 6 Blackmun has not paid the filing fee or otherwise contacted the Court. This Court 7 has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or failure to 8 comply with a court order. Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 9 1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure 10 to prosecute or comply with the federal rules or court order). 11 “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure 12 to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the 13 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 14 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the 15 availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition 16 of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) 17 (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992)). Because the 18 Court has informed Blackman of his need to pay the filing fee or request an 19 extension of time to do so and has not done so or contacted the Court, factors one, 20 two, and four weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191

(9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 22 litigation always favors dismissal.”); Pagtalunan,

(“The trial judge 23 is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes 24 with docket management and the public interest.”); Nevijel v. North Coast Life 25 Insurance Co.,

(9th Cir. 1981) (a court is not required to exhaust 26 all alternatives prior to dismissal). Factor five does not weigh against dismissal. 27 See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th 28 Cir. 2006) (the public policy favoring disposition on the merits does not weigh 1 |}against dismissal where plaintiff's “conduct impedes progress in that direction”). 2 ||Factor three likewise does not weigh in favor of dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 3 ||F.3d at 642 (where defendants have not appeared, “[wle have previously 4 ||recognized that pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself 5 ||to warrant dismissal”). 6 Weighing these factors, the Court finds that a final judgment of dismissal is 7 ||appropriate. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 1998) 8 || (“We may affirm a dismissal where at least four factors support dismissal, or where 9 least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.”) (internal citation omitted) 10 || (quoting Ferdik,

). 11 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based 13 Plaintiff's failure to prosecute by paying the civil filing fee as required by the 14 |}Court’s July 6, 2021 Order. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final 15 judgment of dismissal and terminate this case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: December 3, 2021 lau A. (Buywy 19 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 0 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28