UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case EDCV 24-0192 JGB (SHKx) Date May 30, 2024 Title Isaac Anthony Romero v. Riverside County Sheriff's Department, et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

____MAYNORGALVEZ _______NotReported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Failure to Prosecute (IN CHAMBERS) On January 29, 2024, plaintiff Isaac Anthony Romero (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, County of Riverside, and Abel Juarez (“Defendants”). (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff failed to timely serve Defendants by the April 28, 2024 deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). On May 14, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing, by May 24, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (““OSC,” Dkt. No. 12.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither continued to prosecute this case nor responded to the Court’s OSC. 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). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s OSC, 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.

Page lof 1 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk mg