Opinion
3:23-cv-00211-JMK
01-16-2024
FRANZ REUCHLEIN, Plaintiff, v. APRIL WHITE, Acting Director; WESLEY RENFROW, Director Transit; and JAMIE ACTON, Director Transit, Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
JOSHUA M. KINDRED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 13, 2023, self-represented litigant, Franz Reuchlein (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, civil cover sheet, and an application to waive the filing fee. On October 25, 2023, the Court sent Plaintiff a Standing Order for Self-Represented Litigants, which was returned to the Court as undeliverable on January 12, 2024. To date, Plaintiff has not otherwise contacted the Court regarding this case.
Dockets 1-3.
Docket 4.
Docket 5.
The Local Civil Rules require parties to provide current contact information to the Court and all parties. The Court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with a local rule or failure to comply with any order of the Court. Before dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with an 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. Though not strictly required, it is “preferred” that a court “make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these factors.”
See Local Civil Rules 11.1(b)(2) (requiring self-represented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party's current address and telephone number”) and 11.1(b)(3) (allowing the Court to dismiss a case when a self-represented party fails to update their address and any orders or other mail is returned as undeliverable).
Thompson v. Housing Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See also Ferdik v Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).
See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 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 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.
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. 2013) (finding dismissal under Rule 41(b) appropriate where the court previously Case No. 3:23-cv-00211-JMK, Reuchlein v. White, et al. 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 case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment.