1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALLEN MCFARLAND, Case No. 22-cv-07054-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. 9

10 GUS FULDWER, et al., Defendants. 11

12 This action was filed by pro se plaintiff Allen McFarland against Uber Technologies Inc. 13 and its Vice President, Gus Fuldwer.1 McFarland indicated that his case “belongs in federal court” 14 under “federal question jurisdiction,” though the gravamen of his complaint had to do with Uber’s 15 alleged failure to pay waiting time penalties as ordered by the California Labor Commissioner. 16 Dkt. No. 1. 17 Pursuant to

(e)(2), a magistrate judge issued a screening order and 18 dismissed McFarland’s in forma pauperis complaint for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 19 Dkt. No. 4. The magistrate judge noted that McFarland had not “state[d] a claim that establishes 20 federal question jurisdiction,” and diversity jurisdiction was also unavailable, as there was an 21 apparent lack of complete diversity between the parties and McFarland had not pleaded an amount 22 in controversy over the $75,000 threshold.

McFarland was directed to file an amended 23 complaint that corrected this jurisdictional deficiency by December 13, 2022.

After 24 McFarland failed to file an amended complaint by that date, the magistrate issued a report 25 directing that the case be reassigned to a district judge and recommending that the case be 26 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 9. 27 1 Since the magistrate judge’s report was issued, McFarland has filed a number of letters and 2 other documents on the docket. Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 15, 16. He has not, however, filed an amended 3 complaint, nor addressed the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction in any of his filings. 4 “Tt is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of 5 prosecution.” Ash v. Cvetkov,

(9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). After 6 || considering the Court’s “need to manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious resolution of 7 litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the policy favoring disposition of 8 cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions,”

the Court concludes that 9 dismissal is appropriate. 10 Consequently, the recommendation is adopted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice ll under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: August 7, 2023 14 15 JAMESPONATO = 16 United ftates District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28