1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA JOHAN MOLINA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00019-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE 14 ADAMS, TO PROSECUTE

15 Defendant. (Doc. 46)

16

17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Joshua Johan Molina is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 filed under

. On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing 20 a complaint. (Doc. 1). 21 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on July 8, 2024. (Doc. 22). On May 22 19, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 23 claim. (Doc. 34). Defendant’s motion included a Rand1 warning, specifically addressing the 24 requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34-5). On May 25 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time within which to file a motion for 26 reconsideration regarding the Court’s prior order denying his motion to compel. (Doc. 40). On 27 1 Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 May 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time thereto, as modified. (Doc. 2 41). On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 42). On July 11, 2025, 3 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary 4 judgment. (Doc. 43). That same day, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s separate statement 5 of undisputed facts accompanying the motion for summary judgment, but did not otherwise respond 6 to the motion. (Doc. 44). On July 17, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of 7 time, extending until September 1, 2025, the time within which Plaintiff was required to file his 8 response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 45). 9 The deadline passed and Plaintiff did not file any response. On September 15, 2025, the 10 Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply 11 with the Local Rules and file a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 46). 12 Plaintiff was advised that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiff to respond to this Order may result in 13 dismissal of this action for failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute.”

at 3 14 (emphasis in original). 15 The order to show cause was served on Plaintiff. (See docket entry “service by mail,” dated 16 September 15, 2025). Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Court’s order and the deadline to do 17 so has passed. Thus, the undersigned finds dismissal without prejudice to be appropriate for 18 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute. E.g., Rios v. Gipson, 19 No. 21-16652,

, at *1 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2022) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s 20 § 1983 action for his failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 21 motion for summary judgment, despite being granted an extension of time to make his filing). 22 II. Governing Law 23 A pro se plaintiff must comply with orders of the court. Local Rule (“L.R.”) 183. Failure 24 to comply with a court order may be grounds for imposition of sanctions, including dismissal or 25 any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. L.R. 110, 183. The district court’s inherent 26 power to control its docket also allows the court to impose sanctions, including dismissal of an 27 action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986); see L.R. 28 110. 1 In considering whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order, the 2 Court must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 3 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 4 the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 5 on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. 6 Bonzelet,

, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 7 III. Discussion 8 The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 9 litigation always favors dismissal.”

(quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 (9th 10 Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff has failed to advance and prosecute this case by responding to the Court’s 11 order to show cause and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, thereby delaying resolution 12 of this litigation. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 13 The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of dismissal. “The trial judge 14 is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with docket 15 management and the public interest … It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket 16 without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Id. Here, Plaintiff’s failure to 17 respond to the Court’s order to show cause and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 18 delaying this case and interfering with docket management. Therefore, the second factor also 19 weighs in favor of dismissal. 20 With respect to the third factor, the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not 21 sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. at 642 (citing Yourish,

). However, “delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and 23 evidence will become stale.” Id. at 643. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and 24 to prosecute this case is causing a delay. The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 25 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 26 available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 27 Court from further, unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given Plaintiff’s 28 incarceration, monetary sanctions would be of little efficacy. Moreover, the preclusion of 1 evidence or witnesses is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings. The Ninth Circuit has 2 explained that “[a] district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 3 dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 4

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). “A district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 5 the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 6 requirement.” Ferdik,

. 7 Here, Plaintiff has been warned that failure to obey this Court’s orders will result in 8 dismissal of the action. (Doc. 46 at 3). Additionally, Local Rule 230(l), concerning motion 9 practice in prisoner actions, states that “[a] responding party who has no opposition to the granting 10 of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in 11 question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or statement of no opposition may 12 be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition 13 of sanctions.” L.R. 230(l). Further, because the dismissal being considered in this case is without 14 prejudice, the Court is stopping short of imposing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with 15 prejudice. 16 The fifth factor, the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits, 17 ordinarily weighs against dismissal. See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006). However, because Plaintiff has disregarded the Court’s orders, this 19 factor does not, therefore, weigh completely against dismissal. 20 After weighing these factors, the undersigned finds that dismissal without prejudice is 21 appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure to prosecute. 22 IV. Conclusion and Order 23 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 25 the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute; and 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 2 | IT IS SOORDERED. >| Dated: _ October 20, 2025 | hwrnrD Pr 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28