1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY THOMAS, No. 2:24-cv-03302-DC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 AMAR LIQUOR & MORE, WITH COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendant.

16 17 On August 25, 2025, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file within 14 days 18 either a declaration as to the status of this case or a motion for default judgment, because this case 19 has been pending since November 26, 2024, and the Clerk of the Court entered default as to 20 Defendant on March 25, 2025. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff did not file a declaration or motion as 21 directed and did not otherwise communicate with the court. Consequently, on September 12, 22 2025, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause by no later than September 19, 23 2025, “why this case should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to 24 comply with a court order.” (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to that order has since 25 passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response or a request for an extension of time in which to 26 respond. 27 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the court’s August 25, 2025 order and 28 September 12, 2025 order to show cause, it appears that Plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute 1 this action but rather has abandoned the litigation. 2 In determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, courts consider the 3 follow factors: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 5 disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 6

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

, 398 (9th Cir. 7 1998). 8 In addition, the Local Rules of this court provide that the failure of a party to comply with 9 any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 10 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. A 11 party’s failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other 12 sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

, 53–54 13 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

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