1 J S - 6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE C. WOOD, ) Case No. CV 23-00668-FMO (SHK) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 13 v. ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY ) WITH A COURT ORDER 14 LCMC HOSPITAL, et al., ) ) 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ) 17 18 19 On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. 1, 20 “Complaint”). On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of 21 Filing Fees. (Dkt. 4, “IFP Request”). On February 16, 2023, the Court issued an order postponing 22 ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP Request and directing him to submit additional financial information. (Dkt. 23 5, “February 16, 2023 Order”). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to provide the required 24 information within 30 days could result in this action being dismissed without prejudice. (Id.). 25 Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s February 16, 2023 Order or paid the applicable 26 filing fee. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT this action is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 2 failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link 3 v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) ("The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte 4 [pursuant to Rule 41(b)] for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,' 5 governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own 6 affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases."); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 7 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003) (court may dismiss action 8 for failure to follow court order). 9 Dated this 29th day of March, 2023. 10 /s/

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28