Zuri AGiza v. Department of Health and Human Services

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Zuri AGiza v. Department of Health and Human Services

Trial Court Opinion

1 2

3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 ZURI A’GIZA, Case No. CV 23-0911-CBM (SP) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND/OR COMPLY 13 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WITH COURT ORDER [JS-6] HUMAN SERVICES, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 17 On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Dkt. 1), along with a 18 request to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 4). Because Plaintiff requested leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis in this action, the Court screened the Complaint to 20 determine whether the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 21 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 22 immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2). 23 On February 22, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in 24 forma pauperis without prejudice and dismissed the Complaint with leave to 25 amend. (Dkt. 6). The Court allowed Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file an 26 amended complaint and a renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.). 27 The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint in 1 More than 30 days have now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 2 complaint or otherwise prosecuted this case or complied with the Court’s February 3 22, 2023 Order. 4 Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5 for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and/or comply with the Court’s Order. See Fed. 6 R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 630-31

(1962) 7 (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte [pursuant to Rule 41(b)] for lack of 8 prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by 9 rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own 10 affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); 11 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

291 F.3d 639, 642-43

(9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,

538 U.S. 12 909

(2003) (court may dismiss action for failure to follow court order). 13

14 Dated: APRIL 3, 2023 15 16 HONORABLE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL United States District Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Reference

Status
Unknown