Case 2:22-cv-04978-SVW-JPR Document 17 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD WILLIAMS, ) Case No. CV 22-4978-SVW (JPR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) 13 L.A. CNTY. JAIL et al., ) ) 14 Defendants. ) ) 15 ) 16 Plaintiff filed this civil-rights action on May 25, 2022. 17 Before the Magistrate Judge could screen the Complaint, he filed 18 a First Amended Complaint. On September 15, 2022, the Magistrate 19 Judge dismissed the FAC with leave to amend, telling Plaintiff 20 that if he wished to pursue this lawsuit, he had to file a second 21 amended complaint complying with her instructions by no later 22 than October 13.1 She warned him, in bold letters, that if he 23 did not timely do so, his lawsuit could be dismissed. To date he 24 has not filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of 25 time to do so, and no mail the Court has sent to his address of 26 record has been returned as undeliverable. Indeed, Plaintiff 27 1 The Court has read, agrees with, and accepts the September 28 15 Order. 1 Case 2:22-cv-04978-SVW-JPR Document 17 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:58

1 clearly received the Order dismissing the FAC with leave to amend 2 because on September 28 he returned it to the Court, simply 3 signing his name on the last page. 4 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (per 5 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 6 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. 7 Wabash R.R.,

(1962) (“The power to invoke 8 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 9 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 10 calendars of the District Courts.”). A court must consider “(1) 11 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 12 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 13 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 15 of less drastic sanctions.” Carey,

. 16 Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice 17 to the defendants that can be overcome only with an affirmative 18 showing of just cause by the plaintiff. See In re Eisen,

1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 21 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has 22 offered no explanation for his failure to file an amended 23 complaint fixing the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate 24 Judge. Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice to 25 Defendants. No less drastic sanction is available, as the FAC 26 fails to state a claim and cannot proceed, and Plaintiff is 27 unable or unwilling to comply with the instructions for fixing 28 his allegations. Because none of his claims can proceed, the 2 ase 2:22-cv-04978-SVW-JPR Document17 Filed 11/03/22 Page3of3 Page ID#:5

1} Court is unable to manage its docket. Although the fourth Carey 2 || factor weighs against dismissal — as it always does — together 3} the other factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of case on its merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 5} 1261-63 (Sth Cir. 1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro 6 |} se civil-rights action for failure to timely file amended 7 || complaint remedying deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn,

, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro 9]}se civil-rights action for failure to state claim or timely file 10 || amended complaint). 11 ORDER 12 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to 13 | prosecute and failure to state a claim. 14 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 15 Key £ b)hr 16 || parzp: November 3, 2022 PLY When [CLS STEPHEN V. WILSON 17 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 18 |} Presented by: 19 hrorhatl~ Jean Rosenbluth 20 U.S. Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28