From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Cnty. of Riverside Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Feb 21, 2024
EDCV 23-1734JGB (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024)

Opinion

EDCV 23-1734JGB (JCx)

02-21-2024

Starlette Thompson et al v. County of Riverside Dept of Public Social Services, 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 August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On January 2, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiff timely responded. (“OSC Response,” Dkt. No. 15.) In the OSC Response, Plaintiff explains that she is attempting to litigate this matter. (Id.) While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On January 26, 2024, the Court discharged the OSC and ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendants and file a proper proof of service with the Court no later than February 9, 2024. (Dkt. No. 16.) The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with its order may result in a dismissal of this action. As of the date of this order (over 170 days since Plaintiff filed her Complaint) Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service.

Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). 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. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). Plaintiffs must prosecute their cases 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, Plaintiff has failed to serve Defendant, and thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case with reasonable diligence and that dismissal is therefore appropriate.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Cnty. of Riverside Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Feb 21, 2024
EDCV 23-1734JGB (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024)
Case details for

Thompson v. Cnty. of Riverside Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs.

Case Details

Full title:Starlette Thompson et al v. County of Riverside Dept of Public Social…

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Feb 21, 2024

Citations

EDCV 23-1734JGB (JCx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024)