Opinion
EDCV 21-177 JGB (KKx)
02-22-2022
Michael Hagan v. Bianca Mendez, et al.
Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Prosecute (IN CHAMBERS)
On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Hagan filed a complaint against Defendants Bianca Mendez, Santiago Mendez, Omar Gonzalez, Nora Gonzalez and Jeannette Diaz. (Dkt. No. 1.) Mr. Hagan failed to file a proof of service to demonstrate he had served the summons and complaint on two of five Defendants within 90 days after the complaint was filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Nor have those Defendants answered the complaint within 21 days after service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1). On February 8, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Hagan to show cause in writing on or before February 18, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed as to the applicable defendants for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 21.) Mr. Hagan has failed to comply with the Court's order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute his case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Mr. Hagan has failed to respond to the Court's order to show cause and otherwise failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1