1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL LOUIS CASTAGNOLA, Case No. 3:24-cv-01970-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

DISMISSAL ORDER

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 14 10 Defendant. 11

12 Plaintiff Michael Louis Castagnola, who is representing himself, initially filed this case as 13 a miscellaneous action. See Case No. 24-mc-80050. It was reassigned to the undersigned judge as 14 related to earlier action, 19-8290 JSC, which had been dismissed in 2020. The Court then 15 reviewed the action and concluded it was misclassified and should be opened as a regular civil 16 action. (Dkt. No. 8.) The Court thus ordered the case reclassified and the miscellaneous filing fee 17 refunded to Plaintiff. (Id.) On April 1, 2024, the Clerk mailed Plaintiff a copy of the civil case 18 opening documents including the form for a filing a civil complaint and directed Plaintiff to pay 19 the $405 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiff 20 thereafter filed two documents, but it was unclear what relief, if any, Plaintiff sought in the filings. 21 (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.) The Court thus again directed Plaintiff to submit the case opening documents 22 and pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by May 31, 2024. (Dkt. No. 23 14.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for 25 failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. 26 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may sua sponte 27 1 showing of unreasonable delay.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) 2 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) overruled on other grounds by Langere v. Verizon 3 Wireless Servs., LLC, 983 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2020). In determining whether a Rule 41(b) 4 dismissal is appropriate, the court must weigh the following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 5 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 6 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and 7 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th 8 Cir.1986)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at 9 least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 10 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 11 Here, four of the five Henderson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. “The first two 12 factors—the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage 13 its docket—relate to the “efficient administration of judicial business for the benefit of all litigants 14 with cases pending.” Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1279 15 (9th Cir. 1980). By failing to respond to the Court’s Orders Plaintiff has delayed adjudication of 16 this action. Non-compliance with the Court’s orders wastes “valuable time that [the Court] could 17 have devoted to other ... criminal and civil cases on its docket.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 18 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 As for the third factor, while “the pendency of the lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial 20 itself to warrant dismissal,” the delay caused by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action despite 21 the Court’s orders weighs in favor of dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 22 (9th Cir. 1999). 23 The fourth factor is the availability of less drastic sanctions. The Court already cautioned 24 Plaintiff failure to respond would result in dismissal of this action. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14.) Thus, the 25 Court has fulfilled its “obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva v. 26 Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Ferdick, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“A district court’s 27 warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the 1 dismissal. 2 The last factor, which favors disposition on the merits, by definition weighs against 3 || dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Public policy favors 4 || disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”). However, given 5 that no defendant is named, and no viable cause of action is stated, this factor is neutral at best. 6 In sum, four of the five relevant factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissing this action in 7 its entirety. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (affirming dismissal where three factors favored 8 dismissal, while two factors weighed against dismissal). The Court therefore DISMISSES this 9 action without prejudice. 10 The Clerk is directed to close the case. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: June 11, 2024

15

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE

= 16 United States District Judge 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28