INTRODUCTION

22 On October 27, 2020, plaintiff Revela Curl, proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint 24 asserts a number of claims related to events in which plaintiff lost custody of her 25 daughter shortly after giving birth to her at Harbor UCLA Hospital. 26 In accordance with the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 27 (“PLRA”), the court screened the Complaint to determine whether the action was 28 frivolous or malicious, or failed to state a claim on which relief might be granted, or 1 sought monetary relief against a defendant who was immune from such relief. See 28 2 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b). After careful review and consideration of the 3 allegations of the Complaint under the relevant standards, the court found it was subject 4 to dismissal in a February 18, 2021 order, but granted plaintiff leave to amend or respond 5 to the court’s order by March 18, 2021. The court warned plaintiff that failure to timely 6 file a First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond may result in a recommendation of 7 dismissal for failure to state a claim or failure to prosecute and obey court orders. 8 Plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order in any fashion by March 18, 2021, or since. 9 To provide plaintiff with an opportunity to address her failure to respond or file a 10 First Amended Complaint, on October 20, 2021, the court issued an Order to Show Cause 11 (“OSC”) why the Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court 12 ordered plaintiff to show cause, on or before November 10, 2021, why this action should 13 not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order. The court 14 warned plaintiff in the OSC that failure to timely file and serve a response as directed 15 would be deemed by the court as consent to the dismissal of this action. 16 Plaintiff’s address of record in this case is the address she provided on her 17 Complaint. On November 3, 2021, the copy of the OSC mailed from the court to 18 plaintiff at her address of record was returned as undeliverable. Per Local Rule 41-6, 19 plaintiff had 15 days to notify the court of a change of address, which she failed to do. 20 Well over a year has passed since the November 10, 2021 deadline, but plaintiff 21 has not responded to the court’s OSC, and has not communicated with the court in any 22 fashion since filing the Complaint on October 27, 2020. Plaintiff has thus failed to 23 prosecute this action, in contravention of the court’s orders. As such, this action will be 24 dismissed without prejudice. 25 II. 26 DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff failed to file a First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the 28 court’s dismissal order by the March 18, 2021 deadline or at all, failed to respond to the 1 OSC by the November 10, 2021 deadline or at all, and has failed to keep the court 2 informed of her current address. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s orders 3 despite being admonished of the consequences, and to keep the court apprised of her 4 current address, evidences a lack of prosecution on her part. 5 It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action 6 because of her failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (a court’s authority to 8 dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of 9 pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Pagtalunan 10 v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (weighing factors); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 11 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to 12 comply with any order of the court). 13 In Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit affirmed 14 the district court’s dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute. The Ninth Circuit cited the 15 following factors as relevant to the district court’s determination of whether dismissal of 16 a pro se plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute is warranted: “’(1) the public’s interest 17 in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 18 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 19 their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Id. at 1440 (quoting 20 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 21 In this case, plaintiff failed to respond in any fashion to either the February 18, 22 2021 dismissal order or the October 20, 2021 OSC, and failed to inform the court of her 23 current address. Plaintiff’s failure to follow the court’s orders and to prosecute her case 24 has caused this action to languish, impermissibly allowing plaintiff to control the pace of 25 the docket rather than the court. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“It is incumbent upon 26 the court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of 27 litigants.”). Plaintiff’s conduct indicates that she does not intend to litigate this action 28 diligently, or at all. Thus, the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. See 1 Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s 2 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). 3 A rebuttable presumption of prejudice to defendants arises when a plaintiff 4 unreasonably delays prosecution of an action. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 5 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, because plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders 6 directing her to respond and show cause in writing why the case should not be dismissed, 7 litigation has been delayed. Nothing suggests the presumption of prejudice to defendants 8 is unwarranted. Where a party offers a poor excuse for failing to comply with a court 9 order, the prejudice to opposing parties is sufficient to favor dismissal. See Yourish, 191 10 F.3d at 991-92. Here, plaintiff has not offered any excuse for failing to comply with the 11 court’s orders. Further, “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ 12 memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (citing 13 Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968)). Thus, the third factor also weighs in favor 14 of dismissal. 15 It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to move a case toward a disposition at a reasonable 16 pace and to avoid dilatory and evasive tactics. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 17 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). By failing to inform the court of her current address and 18 failing to respond to the court’s orders, plaintiff has not discharged this responsibility. In 19 these circumstances, the public policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits does 20 not outweigh plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders or move the case 21 forward. 22 The fifth factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, ordinarily counsels 23 against dismissal. “Alternative sanctions include: a warning, a formal reprimand, placing 24 the case at the bottom of the calendar, a fine, the imposition of costs or attorney fees, the 25 temporary suspension of the culpable counsel from practice before the court, . . . 26 dismissal of the suit unless new counsel is secured[,] . . . preclusion of claims or defenses, 27 or the imposition of fees and costs upon plaintiff’s counsel . . . .” Malone v. U.S. Postal 28 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks 1 ||omitted). In the instant case, however, each of these measures is either inappropriate for 2 ||a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis or has already been employed with no 3 || apparent effect. 4 The court attempted to avoid dismissal by: (1) ordering plaintiff to file a First 5 || Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the dismissal order by March 18, 2021, and 6 || warning her that failure to respond may result in dismissal; (2) after plaintiff failed to 7 ||respond to the dismissal order, issuing an OSC in which the court gave plaintiff another 8 || chance to avoid dismissal and warned her failure to respond would be deemed consent to 9 || dismissal; and (3) waiting well after the November 10, 2021 deadline to respond to the 10 ||OSC before issuing this order. Plaintiff has failed to inform the court of her new address 11 record and has not communicated with the court since she filed this case in October 12 |}2020. Furthermore, dismissal without prejudice is less drastic than dismissal with 13 prejudice. Because there appears to be no less drastic sanction than dismissal without 14 || prejudice now available, the fifth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 15 Based on the foregoing, dismissal of the Complaint and this action without 16 || prejudice is warranted for failure to prosecute and obey court orders. 17 Il. 18 CONCLUSION 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing this 20 || action without prejudice. 21 22 23 || Dated: August 16, 2023 24 as < az ay 25 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 27 28