Kamau A Davis v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES MARCH 24, 2015 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (See document for specifics.) (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (iva)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
KAMAU A. DAVIS,

10
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13
14

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-0313-JGB (JPR)
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MARCH 24, 2015 ORDER

15
16

Plaintiff, apparently a pretrial detainee at Men’s Central

17 Jail in Los Angeles, filed pro se a civil rights action on
18 January 15, 2015, and paid the full filing fee. On March 24,
19 2015, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the Complaint with leave to
20 amend because it suffered from numerous deficiencies. She
21 expressly warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely file a
22 sufficient amended complaint by April 21, 2015, his lawsuit would
23 be subject to dismissal for the reasons stated in the Order and
24 for failure to prosecute. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an
25 amended complaint.
26

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per

27 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a plaintiff’s
28 lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. Wabash R.R.
1

1 Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke
2 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the
3 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the
4 calendars of the District Courts.”).
5

In determining whether to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s

6 action for failure to prosecute, a court must consider “(1) the
7 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2)
8 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice
9 to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
10 cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability of less drastic
11 sanctions.”
12 omitted).

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (internal quotation marks

Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of

13 prejudice to the defendants that can be overcome only with an
14 affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff.

See In re

15 Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994).
16

Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors

17 militate in favor of dismissal.

In particular, Plaintiff has

18 offered no explanation for his failure to file an amended
19 complaint.

Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of

20 prejudice to Defendants.

No less drastic sanction is available,

21 as Plaintiff has ceased communicating with the Court, and the
22 Court is therefore unable to manage its docket.

Although the

23 fourth Carey factor weighs against dismissal — as it always does
24 — together the other factors outweigh the public’s interest in
25 disposing of the case on its merits.

See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

26 F.2d 1258, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding dismissal of pro se
27 civil-rights action for failure to timely file amended complaint
28 remedying deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F.
2

1 App’x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se
2 civil-rights action for failure to state claim or timely file
3 amended complaint).
4
5

ORDER
Accordingly, this action is dismissed (1) under the Court’s

6 inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition
7 of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute and (2)
8 for the reasons outlined in the Magistrate Judge’s March 24, 2015
9 Order.
10

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

11
12 DATED: May 26, 2015
13

___________________________
JESUS G. BERNAL
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15

Presented by:

16 __________________________
Jean P. Rosenbluth

17 U.S. Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3