UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 23-0882 JGB (SHKx) Date September 26, 2023 Title Fengping Li v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute (IN CHAMBERS)

Plaintiff Fengping Li (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants on May 16, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1.) On August 21, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before August 28, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 7.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California,

(C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute his case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976). Here, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.