1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARCELIO JOSEPH REYBOL, Case No. 25-cv-02413-JSC

8 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL ORDER v. 9

10 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Defendant. 11

12 13 On March 10, 2025, Arcelio Joseph Reybol—proceeding without attorney 14 representation—sued the Treasury Department. (Dkt. No. 1.) That same day, Mr. Reybol moved 15 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 2.) On March 12, 2025, the Court denied without 16 prejudice Mr. Reybol’s application to proceed IFP. (Dkt. No. 4.) That order provided Plaintiff 17 through April 9, 2025 to file another IFP application. 18 On April 18, 2025, the Court denied Mr. Reybol’s request to proceed IFP because “the 19 April 9, 2025 deadline ha[d] passed and Mr. Reybol ha[d] not filed another IFP application.” 20 (Dkt. No. 5.) That order stated “[i]f Mr. Reybol does not pay the filing fee by May 19, 2025, the 21 Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.” As of the date of this order, Mr. Reybol has not 22 paid the filing fee. 23 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for 24 failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. 25 U.S. Forest Serv.,

, 689 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may sua sponte 26 dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)). In determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is 27 appropriate, the court must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 1 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and 2 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1423 (9th 3 Cir. 1986)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at 4 least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

, 399 5 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 6 Here, four of the five Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The first two 7 factors—the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage 8 its docket—relate to the “efficient administration of judicial business for the benefit of all litigants 9 with cases pending.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A.,

, 1279 10 (9th Cir. 1980). By failing to file another IFP application or to pay the filing fee, Mr. Reybol has 11 delayed adjudication of this action. Non-compliance with the Court’s orders wastes “valuable 12 time that [the Court] could have devoted to other . . . criminal and civil cases on its docket.” 13 Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992). 14 As for the third factor, while “the pendency of the lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial 15 itself to warrant dismissal,” the delay caused by Mr. Reybol’s failure to prosecute this action 16 despite the Court’s orders weighs in favor of dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier,

983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court already cautioned 19 Mr. Reybol that failure to respond would result in dismissal of this action. (Dkt. No. 5.) Thus, the 20 Court has fulfilled its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva v. 21 Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1992); see also Ferdick,

(“A district court’s 22 warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the 23 ‘consideration of [less drastic sanctions]’ requirement.”). The fourth factor thus weighs in favor of 24 dismissal. 25 The last factor, which favors disposition on the merits, by definition weighs against 26 dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (“Public policy favors 27 disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”). 1 its entirety. See Pagtalunan,

(affirming dismissal where three factors favored 2 || dismissal, while two factors weighed against dismissal). The Court therefore DISMISSES this 3 action without prejudice. 4 The Clerk is directed to close the action. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 30, 2025 7 8 re CQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY, 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28