1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMIE L. SLOAN and TRACY B. Case No.: 22cv596-JO-AGS FERNS, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR Plaintiffs, 13 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE v. 14 NIGEL CAIRNS, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 On October 18, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause on or before 21 November 9, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended 22 complaint by the September 30, 2022 deadline. Dkt. 5 (Order to Show Cause). The Court 23 cautioned that failure to timely respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in dismissal 24 of the action. Id. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a response. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) governs involuntary dismissal. Fed. R. Civ.

(b). Before dismissing under Rule 41(b), a district court must weigh five “essential 27 factors”: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 28 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 1 ||favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic 2 ||sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986). “A dismissal 3 lack of prosecution must be supported by a showing of unreasonable delay,” which 4 || “creates a presumption of injury to the defense.” /d. at 1423 (citations omitted). 5 The Court examines the five “essential factors” set forth in Henderson and finds that 6 || they weigh in favor of dismissing the case. Plaintiffs have unreasonably delayed the filing 7 an amended complaint after the initial complaint was dismissed on August 26, 2022. 8 Despite being granted thirty-six days after the dismissal for the amendment, Plaintiffs 9 || failed to meet the Court’s deadlines. To this day, over three months after the Court’s order 10 amend the complaint, Plaintiffs still have not complied with the Court’s order nor 11 ||requested an extension of time to do so. Based on these facts, the Court finds that the 12 || public’s interest in speedy litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in 13 || favor of dismissal. The Court also finds that prejudice to Defendant can be presumed from 14 || the length of this delay. Moreover, by not requesting an extension or even filing a response 15 || to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs have requested no alternative sanction nor 16 demonstrated a desire to prosecute this case. The Court, therefore, finds that dismissal 1s 17 || the appropriate sanction in this case. 18 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 || Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: December 14, 2022 22 23 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28