From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bran v. Sulma

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 2, 2021
2:19-CV-0631-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-CV-0631-DMC-P

12-02-2021

GUILLERMO ALEXANDER BRAN, Plaintiff, v. SULMA, Defendant.


ORDER

DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); see also ECF No. 38 (order reassigning action).

It appears Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in El Salvador.

On October 26, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a status report within 30 days and cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the action. See ECF No. 46. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a status report as ordered. 1

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986).

Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiff s failure to file a status report as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 2


Summaries of

Bran v. Sulma

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 2, 2021
2:19-CV-0631-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Bran v. Sulma

Case Details

Full title:GUILLERMO ALEXANDER BRAN, Plaintiff, v. SULMA, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 2, 2021

Citations

2:19-CV-0631-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021)