1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 LARS KORSVALL, Case No. 2:23-07538-HDV (ADS) i 12 Plaintiff, c

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY 14 SAMANTHA PENNINGER, COURT ORDERS

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Lars Korsvall, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983 (“Section 1983”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On September 19, 2023, the Court issued an 21 Order Regarding Service and Filing Requirements After Filing of Complaint by Pro Se 22 Plaintiff (“Order Regarding Service”). (Dkt. No. 5.) The Order Regarding Service 23 notified Plaintiff that he needed to file proof of service reflecting service upon Defendant 24 Samantha Penninger by no later than December 10, 2023. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff took no 1 action. On December 20, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case 2 Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Obey Court Orders (“Order 3 Regarding Dismissal”). (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond by no later than 4 January 2, 2024. (Id.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded to the 5 Order Regarding Dismissal. Plaintiff has not taken any action in this case since the

6 initial filing of the Complaint on September 11, 2023. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Dismissal of this action is warranted due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the 9 case and comply with court orders. The Court has the inherent power to achieve the 10 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. 12 Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court weighs the following factors when 14 determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order or 15 failure to prosecute: (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; 16 (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant;

17 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 18 of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. 19 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, 20 Plaintiff has failed to engage with this case in any way since September 11, 2023. 21 Plaintiff has failed to timely serve the Complaint or file proof of service. Moreover, 22 Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order Regarding Dismissal even though he was 23 expressly warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal of his Complaint. 24 (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case. This failure to prosecute the case 1 has interfered with the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation 2 and the Court’s need to manage its docket. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 3 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 4 favors dismissal.”). Second, Plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption that Defendant 5 has been prejudiced by this unreasonable delay. In re Eisen,

(9th

6 Cir. 1994) (“The law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.”) (quoting Anderson v. 7 Air West, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976)). Third, there is no less drastic 8 sanction available. Both the Order Regarding Service and the Order Regarding 9 Dismissal warned Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed if he failed to prosecute 10 his case. Accordingly, the Court has taken meaningful steps to explore alternatives to 11 dismissal. See Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (“The district 12 court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, 13 but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.”). Finally, although the fourth 14 factor always weighs against dismissal, here Plaintiff’s failure to discharge his 15 responsibility to move the case towards a disposition outweighs the public policy 16 favoring disposition on the merits. Morris v. Morgan Stanley Co.,

, 652

17 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Although there is indeed a policy favoring disposition on the merits, it 18 is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a 19 reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics.”). Having weighed 20 these factors, the Court finds that dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 41(b) is warranted. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute 24 1 || and comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 2 || Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: 1/26/24 □□ yy? (C4 A 7 8 THE HONORABLE HERNAN D. VERA United States District Judge 9 10 || Presented by: 11 /s/ Autumn D. Spaeth 12 THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24