UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 24-2075 JGB (MAAx) Date November 19, 2025 Title Claudiu Murzea v. Riverside County Sheriff's Department, et al.

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

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

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

Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute (IN CHAMBERS) On September 27, 2024, Plaintiff Claudiu Murzea (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Riverside Police Department, Cathedral City Police Department, and Does 1-10 (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting multiple violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and a violation of California’s Bane Act, Civ. Code § 52.1. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On November 2, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by November 17, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 11.) 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.