Opinion
4:23-cv-00004-SLG-KFR
11-27-2023
LAWRENCE-JAY; HOUSE CAMERON, Plaintiff, v. VALERIE THERRIAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SHARON L. GLEASON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant (“Plaintiff”), initiated this action against Valerie Therrian, Maria-Patrice Bahr, Alice Brown, and Austin Brown. On August 21, 2023, the Magistrate Judge screened the Complaint, found it deficient, but granted Plaintiff leave to file either an amended complaint or a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by October 20, 2023. The Court's order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise contacted the Court.
Dockets 1-5.
Docket 8.
Docket 9.
Rule 41(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal due to a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. Further, if a plaintiff fails to keep a current address on file with the Court, it may result in a dismissal of the case without further notice to the plaintiff.
See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (requiring a notice of change of address to be filed, as “[s]elf-represented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party's current address and telephone number.”).
Before dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with a court order or local rule, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider five factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. A court is not required to “make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these factors.”
See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (first citing Thompson v. Housing Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); and then citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Id.
Having considered these five factors, this case must be dismissed. Dismissal without prejudice “minimizes prejudice to a defendant and preserves a plaintiff's ability to seek relief.” The Court finds no other lesser sanction to be satisfactory or effective in this case. Therefore, this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute this action.
Alli v. City and County of San Francisco, 2022 WL 3099222 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (internal citations omitted).
See, e.g., Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 (a district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives) (internal citation omitted); Gleason v. World Sav. Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 3927799, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (finding dismissal under Rule 41(b) appropriate where the court previously attempted the lesser sanction of issuing an order to show cause and giving the plaintiff an additional opportunity to re-plead).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 3. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment.