Case 2:21-cv-08254-FLA-MRW Document 13 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:108

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. 2:21-cv-08254-FLA (MRW) 13 MICHAEL LAWRENCE,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

14 Plaintiff,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

15 v. 16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 The court dismisses this action without prejudice due to the failure of a 21 pro se litigant to amend his complaint in response to court orders. 22 1. This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff Lawrence was 23 formerly a pretrial inmate at the Twin Towers county jail facility in 24 Los Angeles, California. In a civil complaint filed in October 2021, Plaintiff 25 generally alleged that he suffered from poor treatment from custodial and 26 medical staff at the jail. Dkt. 2. 27 / / / 28 / / / Case 2:21-cv-08254-FLA-MRW Document 13 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:109

1 2. Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the complaint pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Judge Wilner issued a lengthy screening order dismissing the 3 action with leave to amend. The screening order noted numerous pleading 4 defects with Plaintiff’s complaint, including the failure to specifically identify 5 alleged tortfeasors linked to acts that caused Plaintiff injury, and vague 6 allegations against municipal parties. Dkt. 6. The screening order gave Plaintiff 7 until January 2022 to file an amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the 8 action, or face dismissal of the action. 9 3. Plaintiff did neither. Instead, Plaintiff filed a change of address 10 form with the court indicating that he had been moved from a local jail to state 11 prison. Dkt. 7. In the interests of justice, Judge Wilner re-served the screening 12 order on Plaintiff at his new facility. The filing date for an amended complaint 13 was extended to March 18, 2022. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff subsequently requested an 14 extension of that deadline. Dkt. 9. The court granted the request and extended 15 the filing deadline to April 15, 2022. Dkt. 10. 16 4. Plaintiff again failed to amend his complaint. Judge Wilner issued 17 an order to show cause, giving Plaintiff a final opportunity to cure the defects 18 with his complaint. Dkt. 11. 19 5. In a one-page response, Plaintiff stated that he was “unable to show 20 cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed.” Dkt. 12. Plaintiff noted 21 generally that his prison was on lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 22 However, he provided no information about his access to the prison library or to 23 other resources, or other information regarding the six-month delay in 24 responding to the original screening order. Plaintiff vaguely asked the court to 25 extend the action “until further notice or until Covid-19 is no longer an issue.”

26 1 Plaintiff failed to file a proper IFP application with the original complaint. As a result, the Clerk did not assign the action to the district and magistrate judges 27 until he submitted those materials in late November 2021. Dkts. 1, 3. The matter was assigned to Judge Wilner in early December 2021. Dkt. 4. The court 28 issued the screening order shortly after that. Dkts. 5, 6. 2 Case 2:21-cv-08254-FLA-MRW Document 13 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:110

1 Id. To date, however, Plaintiff has submitted no additional information to 2 amend his original defective complaint. 3 6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) provides that if a plaintiff “fails 4 to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may 5 move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be 6 ordered by the court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 7 (1962). 8 7. Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a court to dismiss a civil action 9 when a plaintiff has not filed a required pleading “after being given leave to do 10 so.” Harris v. Magnum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017). Rule 41(b) 11 applies when a court “mandate[s] the filing” of a pleading and “indicate[s] that 12 failure to do so would result in dismissal” under the rule. Applied Underwriters, 13 Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 2019). 14 8. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 15 advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 16 court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 17 defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). 18 Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition of 19 cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in its 20 evaluation. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 21 9. In the present action, the court concludes that dismissal of the 22 action is appropriate. Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint after receiving an 23 explanation of its problems from the magistrate judge, and several lengthy 24 extensions of time to correct them. In the eight months since Plaintiff 25 commenced this civil action, he has failed to respond substantively to the court’s 26 screening order about his defective complaint. Plaintiff’s inability to do so 27 demonstrates that he has no interest in advancing the action here. 28 3 Case 2:21-cv-08254-FLA-MRW Document 13 Filed 07/18/22 Page4of4 Page ID#:111

1 10. By contrast, the court, the defendants, and the public have a strong 2 || interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given that Plaintiff 3 || effectively chose not to pursue his case by failing to comply with the court’s 4 | screening order. Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who admits 5 || that he is unable to advance the action, no sanction short of dismissal will be 6 | effective in moving this case forward. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. Plaintiffs 7 || alternative request (an indefinite delay of the action pending the outcome of the 8 || pandemic and the change of conditions at his prison) is unworkable. The court 9 || concludes that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Applied Underwriters, 10 | 913 F.3d at 892. 11 11. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) ordinarily “operates as an adjudication 12 || on the merits” of a claim. However, given the equities conveyed in Plaintiff's 13 || recent submission, the court exercises its discretion to dismiss the action without 14 || prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Dated: July 18, 2022 18 FERNAND L. AENL E-ROCHA United States District Judge 19 20 Presented by: 21 Lf [ 22 /

23 | MICHAEL R. WILNER 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28