Opinion
EDCV 19-852 JGB (SHKx)
02-01-2022
Gary Scherer v. Chukrala Isak, 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 May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Gary Scherer filed a complaint against Defendants Chukrala Isak, Souad Hachicho, Sergio Nogueron, and Does 1 through 10. (“Complaint, ” Dkt. No. 1.) On August 14, 2020, the Court ordered Mr. Scherer to file a motion for leave to amend or motion for entry of default judgment on the Complaint by August 17, 2020. (“Order, ” Dkt. No. 40.) However, Mr. Scherer failed to meet this deadline. On January 12, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Scherer to show cause in writing on or before January 18, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed as to the defendants for lack of prosecution. (“OSC, ” Dkt. No. 51.) Mr. Scherer timely responded on January 18, 2022. (“Response, ” Dkt. No. 53.) However, the Court finds the Response insufficient to explain why he failed to comply with the Court's Order and failed to prosecute his case for seventeen months. Moreover, as noted in the OSC, Mr. Scherer has repeatedly disregarded the deadlines of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 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. Scherer has failed to comply with the Court's Order and failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's action pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court DENIES the Application for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 54) as MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.