Cate 2:22-cv-04953-ODW-AGR Document9 Filed 02/14/23 Pagelof4 Page ID #:39

1 ' JS-6 ° Hnited States District Court Central District of California

11 | ANTWONE STOKES, Case Ne 2:22-cv-04953-ODW (AGR) 12 Plaintiff, 13 y. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

'4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 | DEPARTMENT, et al., REQUEST 16 Defendants. 17 ig IL.BACKGROUND 19 On July 15, 2022, Antwone Stokes (‘Plaintiff’) filed a pro se civil rights 50 Complaint and an accompanying request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Request’). 3 (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) » On July 27, 2022, the undersigned issued an Order postponing ruling on the IFP

53 Request because Plaintiff had not signed it, and also dismissing the Complaint with

34 leave to amend because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief could be

35 granted. (ECF No. 4.) The undersigned allowed Plaintiff 30 days to (1) refile his IFP

56 Request with a valid signature, and (2) file an amended complaint. (/d.) 37 On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to comply with the

3g Court’s Order. (ECF No. 5.)

Case 2:22-cv-04953-ODW-AGR Document 9 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:40

1 On October 31, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed an order granting the 2 extension request and detailing further instructions on filing a request to substitute 3 counsel, a prisoner authorization, and a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 4 6.) The Magistrate Judge instructed Plaintiff to file the request to substitute counsel— 5 provided Plaintiff had retained counsel—by December 9, 2022, and file a signed 6 prisoner authorization form and FAC by December 14, 2022. (Id.) 7 On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court, dated December 8 11, 2022, stating that he has retained a lawyer and requesting additional time to 9 communicate with counsel and seek advice on Plaintiff’s various pending cases. (ECF 10 No. 7.) Accordingly, on January 9, 2023, the Court is granted Plaintiff an additional 11 fifteen (15) days to file a request for approval of substitution of counsel, and a proposed 12 order, as detailed in the Magistrate Judge’s October 31, 2022 order. (ECF No. 8.) 13 Further, Plaintiff was granted an additional twenty (20) days to timely file a signed 14 prisoner authorization form and FAC as also detailed in the Magistrate Judge’s October 15 31, 2022 order. (Id.) Finally, the Court advised:

16 As Plaintiff’s case has now been pending over five months, Plaintiff is 17 given a final warning that if he does not comply, this action is subject to 18 dismissal, and his IFP request subject to denial, for the reasons stated in the July 27, 2022 and October 31, 2022 orders. 19 (Id.) 20 As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not complied with any of the Court’s 21 instructions. 22

II.LEGAL STANDARD

23 The authority to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute and 24 follow court orders is well settled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 25 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 In determining whether to dismiss an action on that basis, the Court considers: “(1) the 27 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage 28

2 Case 2:22-cv-04953-ODW-AGR Document 9 Filed 02/14/23 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:41

1 its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 2 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 3 See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Here, the undersigned’s July 27, 2022 order specifically warned Plaintiff that if 6 he “does not comply with [the] instructions [regarding the IFP Request] within 30 days, 7 this case will be DISMISSED without prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 2.) Further, the order 8 “advised that if [Plaintiff] fails to file a timely and corrected [FAC] within 30 days . . . 9 this action will be dismissed.” (Id. at 9.) The assigned Magistrate Judge’s October 31, 10 2022 order warned that “[i]f Plaintiff does not timely file a signed prisoner authorization 11 form, his request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees may be denied” and that 12 “[i]f Plaintiff does not file a timely [FAC], this action is subject to dismissal for the 13 reasons stated in the July 27, 2022 Order.” (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Finally, the Court 14 reiterated similar warnings in its last order, and the time to comply with that order 15 expired. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has failed to heed these warnings and comply with any 16 of the Court’s orders. Under these circumstances, and in consideration of the factors 17 above, the Court concludes that dismissal of the action without prejudice is warranted. 18 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440; In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 19 Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The[] factors are not a series 20 of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a ‘way for a district judge 21 to think about what to do.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). For the 22 same reason, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s IFP Request should be denied. 23 24 25 26 27 28

3 Cate 2:22-cv-04953-ODW-AGR Document9 Filed 02/14/23 Page 4of4 Page ID #:42

1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 3 | PREJUDICE and the IFP Request is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ~ February 14, 2023 ae 10 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28