INTRODUCTION

17 On March 31, 2022, Defendants removed the above-entitled action from the 18 Los Angeles County Superior Court to the Central District on the grounds that, inter 19 alia, Plaintiff, a California resident proceeding pro per, alleged violations of the 20 Fourth Amendment and other federal questions in his complaint. [Dkt. 1.] On April 21 7, 2022, Defendants filed a partial Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) for failure to 22 state a claim for which relief can be granted. [Dkt. 7.] On April 20, 2022, the Court 23 ordered Plaintiff to file an Opposition to the Motion no later than April 29, 2022. 24 [Dkt. 11.] 25 Seven weeks passed without an Opposition or any other correspondence from 26 Plaintiff. Having heard nothing from Plaintiff since removal, on June 22, 2022, the 27 Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, by July 12, 2022, why the Court should not 28 Case 2:22-cv-02127-JFW-GJS Document 13 Filed 07/21/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:110

1 dismiss this case for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 2 procedure 41(b). [Dkt. 12.] The Court alternatively advised Plaintiff that he could 3 discharge the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) by filing an opposition to the pending 4 Motion or request an extension of time to do so. [Dkt. 12.] The Court expressly 5 cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to act as specified in the OSC would result in the 6 recommendation of dismissal of the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b) for 7 failure to prosecute. The Clerk served a copy of that Order on Plaintiff directly at 8 the address which he provided to the Court. [Dkt. 12.] 9 Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the Court or otherwise prosecute this case 10 has passed. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response to the 11 Court or otherwise prosecuted this case since March 31, 2022. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may sua sponte 14 dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. Link v. 15 Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 16 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether dismissal for lack of prosecution is 17 proper, a court must weigh several factors, including: (1) the public’s interest in 18 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 19 risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of 20 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. In re 21 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 22 2006). 23 Here, the first and second factors favor dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. 24 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious 25 resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). Plaintiff has failed to respond to 26 the Court’s order or seek an extension. Plaintiff’s conduct hinders the Court’s ability 27 to move this case toward disposition and indicates that he does not intend to litigate 28 this action diligently. 2 Case 2:22-cv-02127-JFW-GJS Document 13 Filed 07/21/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:111

1 The third factor (the risk of prejudice to the defendant) also favors dismissal. 2 Although the mere pendency of a lawsuit is not prejudicial in and of itself, a failure 3 to provide a reasonable excuse for defaulting on a court order can indicate sufficient 4 prejudice to warrant dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92 (“Plaintiff[’s] paltry 5 excuse for his default on the judge’s order indicates that there was sufficient 6 prejudice to Defendants . . . .”). Here, Plaintiff has provided no explanation – much 7 less a reasonable one – for his failure to respond to the OSC. See id.; Sw. Marine 8 Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Unreasonable delay is the 9 foundation upon which a court may presume prejudice.”). 10 The fourth factor generally weighs against dismissal; however, it assumes that 11 a litigant has complied with the statutory obligations imposed under Rule 11(b) and 12 has manifested a diligent desire to prosecute his or her claims. See In re 13 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 14 2006) (“[T]his factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move 15 a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 16 direction.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the 17 plaintiff has failed to respond to a valid Court order, the fourth factor favors 18 dismissal. 19 Finally, the fifth factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, weighs in 20 favor of dismissal where, as here, the OSC warned Plaintiff that his failure to 21 comply with the Court’s Order could result in dismissal of this action. Having been 22 so cautioned, yet having ignored the Order to file a response, it appears that Plaintiff 23 has no interest in pursuing this case. Indeed, he implicitly has conceded that he has 24 no interest in prosecuting it. Under these circumstances, dismissal is appropriate. 25 A balancing of these factors thus leads to the conclusion that dismissal 26 without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b), is warranted. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 27 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal appropriate when strongly supported by 28 3 Case|P:22-cv-02127-JFW-GJS Document13 Filed 07/21/22 Page4of4 Page ID #:112

1 || three factors); Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 2 || 1987) (dismissal appropriate when supported by four factors). 3 CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT Is ORDERED that this case is 5 || dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 || Procedure. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATED: July 21, 2022 5 □□ LP 11 As F. WALTER 12 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 || PRESENTED BY:

16 GAIL J. STANDISH 17 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28