1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSBERT AYENI-AARONS, No. 2:18-cv-01625-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 BEST BUY CREDIT SERVICES/CBNA, WITH COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO et al., PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 20, 2025, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause, within 18 seven days, “why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and 19 failure to comply with a court order.” (Doc. No. 106.) Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to that order 20 has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response or a request for an extension of time in 21 which to do so. 22 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the order to show cause and his failure to 23 comply with the court’s March 5, 2025 order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant 24 Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion for a status conference (Doc. No. 105), it appears 25 that Plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute this action but rather has abandoned the litigation. 26 In determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, courts consider the 27 follow factors: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 28 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 1 disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 2

(9th Cir. 2002); Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

(9th Cir. 3 1998). 4 In addition, the Local Rules of this court provide that the failure of a party to comply with 5 any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 6 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. A 7 party’s failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other 8 sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 9 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 10 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 11 complaint), as amended (May 22, 1992). 12 Here, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage 13 its docket, and the risk of prejudice to Defendants all support the imposition of the sanction of 14 dismissal here. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against 15 dismissal. However, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action makes disposition on the merits an 16 impossibility. Finally, with respect to availability of less drastic sanctions, the court has 17 considered alternative measures. The issuance of yet another order to show cause would be futile 18 under the circumstances presented. 19 Accordingly, this action will be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and 20 failure to comply with the court’s orders. 21 For the reasons set forth above, 22 1. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond 23 to the March 20, 2025 order to show cause (Doc. No. 106), failure to prosecute this 24 action, and failure to comply with the court’s orders; and 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 5 | Dated: _ April 3, 2025 RVI Os Dena Coggins 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28