1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMAR REYNOSO, Case No. 2:24-cv-07041-DDP-JC 12 Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 J. ANAYA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 19 On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff Omar Reynoso, a California inmate confined at 20 California State Prison, Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), who is proceeding pro 21 se and has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of filing fees (“IFP”), 22 formally filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against seven 23 CSP-LAC employees, sued in their individual capacities. (Docket No. 1). The 24 Complaint asserted claims for violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to 25 receive personal mail, his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and 26 unusual punishment, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to “Life, Liberty, [and] 27 Property” (construed as his right to due process), along with multiple state tort 28 claims, based on allegations that the mail room staff mishandled and then lost a 1 packet of important documents that his family had sent to him by certified mail, and 2 that his subsequent efforts to obtain administrative relief were evaded or denied. 3 (See Comp. at 6, 15-24).1 He sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. 4 (Comp. at 7). 5 As Plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, the assigned Magistrate Judge 6 screened the Complaint to determine if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 7 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 8 defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 9 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. 10 On April 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Dismissing Complaint 11 with Leave to Amend and Directing Plaintiff to Respond to Order (“Screening 12 Order”).2 (Docket No. 8). The Screening Order advised Plaintiff that the Complaint 13 14 1Citations to the Complaint and its attachments refer to the page numbers assigned by the Court’s official Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. 15 16 2Absent consent by all parties, including unserved defendants, a magistrate judge cannot issue dispositive orders, including an order dismissing a claim. Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 17 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[C]onsent of all parties (including unserved defendants) is a prerequisite to a magistrate judge’s 18 jurisdiction to enter dispositive decisions under § 636(c)(1).”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). 19 However, “the dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend is a non-dispositive matter.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, a magistrate judge may 20 dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without the approval of a district judge. See id. at 797. Additionally, a plaintiff who disagrees with a magistrate judge’s order, including a nondispositive 21 order dismissing a pleading with leave to amend, may file an objection with the district judge. See 22 Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Hunt v. Pliler, 384 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) (“District court review of even these nondispositive matters . . . can be 23 compelled upon objection of the party against whom the magistrate has ruled.”) (quoting McKeever, 932 F.2d at 798). The Screening Order expressly notified Plaintiff that (1) the 24 Screening Order constituted non-dispositive rulings on pretrial matters; (2) to the extent a party 25 disagreed with such non-dispositive rulings, such party may seek review from the District Judge within fourteen (14) days; (3) to the extent a party believed that the rulings were dispositive, rather 26 than non-dispositive, such party had the right to object to the determination that the rulings were 27 non-dispositive within fourteen (14) days; and (4) a party would be foreclosed from challenging the rulings in the Screening Order if such party did not seek review thereof or object thereto. 28 (continued...) 2 1 was deficient for reasons described in the Screening Order,3 dismissed the 2 Complaint with leave to amend, and directed Plaintiff, within twenty-one days, to 3 file one of the following: (1) a First Amended Complaint which cures the pleading 4 defects described in the Screening Order; (1) a Notice of Dismissal; or 5 (3) a Notice of Intent to Stand on the Complaint. The Screening Order expressly 6 cautioned Plaintiff that the failure timely to file a First Amended Complaint, a Notice 7 of Dismissal, or a Notice of Intent to Stand on the Complaint may be deemed 8 Plaintiff’s admission that amendment is futile and may result in the dismissal of this 9 action on the grounds set forth in the Screening Order, on the ground that 10 amendment is futile, for failure diligently to prosecute, and/or for failure to comply 11 with the Screening Order. 12 Although the deadline to comply with the Screening Order expired weeks 13 ago, to date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Screening Order or sought an 14 extension of the deadline to do so. Nor has Plaintiff sought review of, or filed any 15 objection to the Screening Order. 16 As discussed below, this action is dismissed due to Plaintiff’s unreasonable 17 failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the Screening Order by the 18 deadline to do so. 19 II. PERTINENT LAW 20 It is well-established that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action 21 where the plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and/or unreasonably 22 failed to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); 23 24 2(...continued) 25 (Screening Order at 13 n.4). 26 3Specifically, the Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff, albeit in greater detail and with 27 citation to authorities, that the Complaint failed to state a viable federal claim for relief and that absent a viable federal claim, it was appropriate for the court to decline to exercise supplemental 28 jurisdiction over his state claims. 3 1 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.) (as amended), cert. denied, 506 2 U.S. 915 (1992); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) 3 (district court may sua sponte dismiss action “only for an unreasonable failure to 4 prosecute”) (citations omitted); see also Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 5 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) proper 6 sanction in cases where a plaintiff is notified of deficiencies in complaint and is 7 given “the opportunity to amend [the complaint] or be dismissed” but the plaintiff 8 “[does] nothing”) (citations omitted; emphasis in original). 9 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure 10 to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors, namely 11 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 12 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy 13 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 14 alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to 15 prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to comply with court orders). 16 Dismissal is appropriate under the foregoing analysis “where at least four factors 17 support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” 18 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). 19 Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the court must first notify the 20 plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint so that the plaintiff has an opportunity 21 “to amend effectively.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (citation omitted). In addition, 22 where a Magistrate Judge originally dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, 23 the District Judge must review that decision before dismissing the entire action. See 24 McKeever, 932 F.2d at 797 (“While the magistrate can dismiss complaints with leave 25 to amend, the district court necessarily must review that decision before dismissing 26 the entire action.”). A District Judge may not dismiss an action for failure to comply 27 with a court order (e.g., the Magistrate Judge’s order to file an amended complaint) 28 or for unreasonable failure to prosecute if the initial 4 1 decision to dismiss a complaint was erroneous. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 2 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing id.). 3 III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 4 First, the Court has reviewed the Screening Order dismissing the Complaint, 5 and finds that the Screening Order adequately and properly notified Plaintiff of the 6 deficiencies in the Complaint and afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to amend 7 effectively. This Court agrees with and adopts the Screening Order and finds that 8 the Magistrate Judge properly dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend for the 9 reasons discussed in the Screening Order.4 10 Second, dismissal is appropriate based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 11 the Screening Order and the failure to prosecute. The Court has considered the five 12 factors discussed above – the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, 13 the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the Defendants, the 14 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of 15 less drastic alternatives. The first two factors – the public’s interest in expeditiously 16 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket – strongly 17 weigh in favor of dismissal. As noted above, Plaintiff has been notified of the 18 19 4 Although the Court agrees with and adopts the Screening Order’s conclusion that Plaintiff 20 has failed to state a First Amendment claim, the court notes that improper motive is not a necessary 21 element of such a claim. See Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing temporary delivery delay related to security inspection, with no mention of intent). Rather, 22 retaliatory or other improper motive may give rise to a constitutional claim “even where the action taken . . . would otherwise be permissible.” Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 948 (10th Cir. 23 1990). Indeed, under some circumstances, “a plaintiff not need not allege a longstanding practice 24 of violating his First Amendment rights.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2017) (reversing dismissal of First Amendment claim involving “isolated interferences” with mail 25 where complaint alleged arbitrary and capricious, rather than merely negligent, acts); see also 26 Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1197 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[E]ven isolated incidents of improper mail opening may, in appropriate circumstances, be sufficient to allege a Sixth 27 Amendment violation.”). 28 5 1 || deficiencies in the Complaint and has been given the opportunity to amend it, to 2 || dismiss it, or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand thereon. He has done none 3 || of those things. See Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1065. The third factor, risk of prejudice 4 || to the Defendants, also weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. See Anderson v. Air 5 || West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (prejudice to defendants presumed 6 || from unreasonable delay) (citation omitted). The fourth factor, the public policy 7 || favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in 8 || favor of dismissal discussed herein. As for the fifth factor, since Plaintiff has 9 || already been cautioned of the consequences of his failure to prosecute and his 10 || failure to comply with the Screening Order by the deadline to do so, and has been 11 || afforded the opportunity to avoid such consequences but has not responded, no 12 || sanction lesser than dismissal is feasible. See, e.g., Yourish, 191 F.3d at 989 13 || (dismissal of action with prejudice not excessive sanction for plaintiffs’ failure 14 || timely to comply with court’s order to submit an amended complaint). 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed based upon 16 || Plaintiff's unreasonable failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the 17 || Screening Order by the deadline to do so. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | DATED: May 29, 2025 20 21 22 HONORABLE DEAN D. PREGERSON 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28