1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY MATTHEWS, Case No. 5:21-CV-00170-VBF-KES

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

13 v.

WANT OF PROSECUTION

14 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On January 25, 2021, Randy Matthews (“Plaintiff”), filed a pro se civil rights 19 lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the County of Riverside, Sheriff Chad 20 Bianco, and Does 1–10 (collectively, “Defendants”) violated his rights under the 21 Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection 22 Clause by depriving him of his “liberty and his freedom” as well as his personal 23 property. (Dkt. 1 [“Complaint”].) Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma 24 pauperis. (Dkt. 3 [“IFP Request”].) On February 1, 2021, the Court notified 25 Plaintiff that his case had been assigned to the undersigned District Judge and 26 referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (Dkt. 4 [“Notice of Assignment”].) 27 On March 3, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP Request, finding that he made 28 an inadequate showing of indigency, and gave him until April 2, 2021, either to pay 1 the filing fee or submit an amended IFP Request. (Dkt. 5, 6.) On March 15, 2021, 2 the Court issued a Case Management Order, which among other issues, admonished 3 Plaintiff that he “must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 4 Local Civil Rules of this Court” and that any request for extension of time “should 5 be filed before the deadline has expired.” (Dkt. 7 at ¶¶ 1, 3.) On April 19, 2021, 6 the Court granted Plaintiff’s amended IFP Request. (Dkt. 8, 9.) 7 On April 19, 2021, the Court issued an order dismissing the Complaint with 8 leave to amend. (Dkt. 10 [“ODLA”].) The ODLA dismissed the Complaint 9 without prejudice due to multiple pleading defects, including (1) failure to satisfy 10 the pleading burden for making Monell claims; (2) failure to plead any facts 11 demonstrating Sheriff Bianco’s direct involvement in his deputies’ actions; 12 (3) uncertain Doe allegations; and (4) failure to allege sufficient facts to support his 13 constitutional claims.. (Id. at 2–5.) The Court provided Plaintiff with options as to 14 how to proceed with his action and gave him until May 19, 2021 to respond. (Id. at 15 6.) Finally, the Court admonished Plaintiff that if he “fails to timely respond to 16 this order by exercising one of these two options, this action may be dismissed 17 for lack of diligent prosecution.” (Id.) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff has 18 neither responded to the ODLA nor requested an extension of time in which to do 19 so. Because Plaintiff has not responded to the ODLA, which provided him with 20 options on how to proceed, Plaintiff has left this action in limbo. 21 District courts may dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for 22 failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 23 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); 24 see also Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (holding that the court 25 has “inherent power” to dismiss cases sua sponte for lack of prosecution). In Carey 26 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), the Ninth Circuit cited the 27 following factors as relevant to the Court’s determination whether to dismiss an 28 action for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 1 || litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 2 || defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and 3 || (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440; accord Sokolsky v. 4 || Meeks, 789 F. App’x 63, 64 (9th Cir. 2019). 5 Here, factors one and two, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 6 || litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, militate in favor of 7 || dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Factor four, the public policy favoring 8 || disposition of cases on the merits, counsels against dismissal, but a dismissal 9 || without prejudice would not, in and of itself, preclude consideration of the case on 10 || the merits at some later date. Lastly, the fifth factor, the availability of less drastic 11 || sanctions, also counsels in favor of dismissal where, as here, Plaintiff has made no 12 || effort to comply with the Court’s deadline. Thus, three of the five factors set forth 13 || in Carey strongly favor dismissal, and dismissal of the action 1s warranted. 14 15 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this 16 || action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 17 18 || DATED: July 18, 2021 /s/ Valerie Baker Fairbank 19 Hon. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 || Presented by: 22 Torun) 6. Scot? 23 || KAREN E. SCOTT 94 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28