1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GERROD HERNDON, Case No. 22-cv-01618-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 v. RECOMMENDATION

10 MENTAL HEALTH OF MARIN CO., et Re: Dkt. No. 9 al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 On May 11, 2022, Magistrate Judge Hixson issued a Report and Recommendation in the 14 above-captioned case. Dkt. No. 9. The plaintiff, Gerrod Herndon, first filed his complaint along 15 with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 7, 2022. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. However, 16 Herndon failed to properly fill out the IFP application. The Court directed Herndon to correct the 17 IFP application by April 14, 2022 or pay the filing fee. Dkt. No. 5. Herndon failed to respond. The 18 Court then ordered Herndon to show cause, by May 5, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed 19 for failure to prosecute and comply with court deadlines. Dkt. No. 8. Despite receiving proper 20 notice that dismissal would result if he remained unresponsive, Herndon failed to respond to the 21 Court’s show-cause order. Judge Hixson thus recommends dismissal of Herndon’s case without 22 prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Dkt. No. 9 at 1. Herndon failed to object to Judge 23 Hixson’s Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served. 24 The Court agrees with Judge Hixson’s Report and Recommendation. To determine whether 25 Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted, the courts should consider: “(1) the public’s interest in 26 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 27 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 1 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986)). These factors weigh 3 in favor of dismissal here. Herndon’s complete failure to respond to two court orders is contrary to 4 || the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket. 5 Herndon was warned repeatedly of the sanctions that would result if he failed to respond. And while 6 disposition on the merits is usually favored, a “case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a 7 || party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . . cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits.” 8 In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006). Finally, 9 Herndon’s ongoing failure to prosecute (further evinced by a failure to oppose this Report and 10 || Recommendation) would unduly burden defendants with the costs and burdens of litigation. 11 The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES the case 12 || without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 |] Dated: May 31, 2022 Site WU tee 2 16 5 SUSAN ILLSTON nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28