1 J S - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL BUTAKOV, Case No. 2:24-cv-09655-SSS (AGR) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

13

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A

v.

COURT ORDER

14

OSCAR INSURANCE COMPANY,

15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 INTRODUCTION 20 On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Request to Proceed 21 In Forma Pauperis (“IFP request”). [Dkt. 1, 5]. Plaintiff raised several claims 22 related to the allegedly improper treatment of his heart condition. [Dkt. 1]. 23 On December 18, 2024, the Court postponed ruling on the IFP request until 24 Plaintiff provided more information. [Dkt. 9]. Specifically, Plaintiff was ordered 25 to file an Amended Complaint against Oscar Insurance Company, because the 26 claims against the other Defendants were barred by res judicata or Eleventh 27 Amendment immunity. Id. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with 28 the order would result in dismissal of the action. Id. 1 On January 27, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of 30 days to 2 file an Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 11]. The Court again warned Plaintiff that the 3 failure to comply with the order to file an Amended Complaint would result in 4 dismissal of the action. 5 As of this date, more than 30 days later, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended 6 Complaint or communicated with the Court. 7 DISCUSSION 8 A. Legal Standard. 9 A district court has the inherent power under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 41(b) to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with the court’s 11 order. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962). Specifically, the failure of 12 a plaintiff to comply with a district court’s order to file an amended complaint is 13 properly met with the sanction of dismissal under Rule 41(b). Applied 14 Underwriters, Inc., v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019) (collecting 15 cases). “Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to amend his 16 complaint after the district judge dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the 17 dismissal is typically considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order 18 rather than for failing to prosecute the claim.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 19 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). 20 “[I]n order for a court to dismiss a case as a sanction, the district court must 21 consider five factors: ‘(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 22 (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 23 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 24 availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986 (quoting 25 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)). A district 26 court’s sanction of dismissal generally will be affirmed where at least four factors 27 support dismissal or where at least three factors strongly support it. Hernandez, 138 28 F.3d at 399. As stated below, four of the five factors support dismissal. 1 B. Analysis. 2 1. The Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution. 3 The first factor supports dismissal. “[T]he public’s interest in expeditious 4 resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990. 5 2. The Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket 6 The second factor also supports dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to 7 the Court’s Order interferes with the Court’s ability to manage its docket. See 8 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The trial judge is in the 9 best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with 10 docket management and the public interest. Arguably, Pagtalunan’s petition has 11 consumed some of the court’s time that could have been devoted to other cases on 12 the docket.”) (internal citation omitted); see also Irvin v. Madrid, 749 F. App’x 13 546, 547 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The second factor also favors dismissal because the 14 district court is in the best position to determine whether a particular set of 15 circumstances interferes with docket management.”). 16 3. The Risk of Prejudice to Defendants. 17 The third factor also supports dismissal. The risk of prejudice is “related to the 18 plaintiff’s reason for defaulting in failing to timely amend.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 19 991. The record suggests no apparent reason for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or 20 respond to the Court’s latest Order. This indicates sufficient prejudice to Defendant. 21 See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that the law 22 presumes injury to the defendants from unreasonable delay). 23 4. The Public Policy Favoring Disposition of the Merits. 24 The fourth factor weighs against dismissal. “We have often said that the 25 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits strongly counsels against 26 dismissal.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 27 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399). On the other 28 hand, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a 1 || case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 2 || direction.” Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1228 (citations and quotation 3 || marks omitted). Thus, this factor alone does not preclude dismissal. 4 5. The Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives. 5 The fifth factor supports dismissal. “Here the fact that the [Court] allowed 6 || [Plaintiff] an additional thirty days to amend his complaint . . . constituted an 7 || attempt at a less drastic sanction than outright dismissal.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 8 || F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court also warned Plaintiff that the failure to 9 || comply with the Court’s Order to amend his Complaint would result in dismissal. 10 || See Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1229 (“Warning that failure to obey a 11 || court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 12 || requirement.”) (citing, inter alia, Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (Moreover, our 13 || decisions also suggest that a district court’s warning to a party that his failure to 14 || obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of 15 || alternatives’ requirement.”)). Despite the Court’s warning, Plaintiff has failed to 16 || file an Amended Complaint. 17 C. Conclusion. 18 Four of the five factors support dismissal of the action for failure to comply 19 || with an Order of the Court. In sum, dismissal without prejudice is warranted. 20 ORDER 21 It is ordered that the action is dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 || 4100). 23 24 || DATED: March 5, 2025 25 hr 4 ( 26 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28