Opinion
3:23-cv-00245-JMK
12-20-2023
DIN OGAN SHANGO SMITH, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER MCLEON and OFFICER DRAZENOVICH, Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
JOSHUA M. KINDRED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 23, 2023, self-represented litigant, Din Ogan Shango Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, civil cover sheet, and an application to waive the filing fee.On October 30, 2023, the Court's Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) confirming the receipt and filing of Dockets 1-3 in the above-captioned case was returned to the Court as undeliverable.To date, Plaintiff has not otherwise contacted the Court regarding this case.
Dockets 1-3.
Docket 5.
As the Court has previously advised, 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.The Court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with a local ruleor failure to comply with any order of the Court.
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.”).
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).
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.Though not strictly required, it is “preferred” that a court “make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these factors.”
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 Case No. 3:23-cv-00245-JMK, Smith v. McLeon, et al. 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 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.