Shirley Smith v. City of Santa Monica

Filing 28

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mz)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 SHIRLEY SMITH, Plaintiff, 14 16 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FRCP 41(b) v. 15 Case No. CV 17-1442 JGB (MRW) CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 20 The Court dismisses the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to respond to Court orders. *** 21 22 1. This is a pro se civil rights action. Plaintiff Smith (a disabled 23 white woman) contends that African-American Santa Monica city bus drivers 24 discriminated against her based on her race and physical condition. After extended 25 motion practice, the Court granted the City’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First 26 Amended Complaint in September 2017 with leave to amend. (Docket # 20.) 27 28 1 2. Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint in mid-October 2017. 2 (Docket # 21.) The City filed a motion to dismiss the action shortly after that for 3 failure to state a claim. (Docket # 26.) 4 3. The City noticed the motion for hearing on December 20. Plaintiff 5 did not file any written opposition to the City’s motion before the deadline set forth 6 in Local Rule 7-9 (opposition to motion to be filed “not later than twenty-one days 7 before the date designated for the hearing of the motion”). 8 9 4. On December 4, the Court vacated the hearing and granted the City’s unopposed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (Docket # 27.) 10 The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be 11 dismissed with prejudice for violation of Local Rules 7-9 and 41 (failure to 12 prosecute). 13 14 5. filed anything with the Court since mid-October 2017. 15 16 Plaintiff did not file any response to the Court’s OSC. She has not *** 6. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply 17 with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or 18 any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the Court sua sponte. 19 Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). Dismissal of a civil action 20 under Rule 41 may be appropriate to advance the public’s interest in the 21 expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and to 22 avoid the risk of prejudice to defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081, 23 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, a court should consider the public policy 24 favoring disposition of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic 25 alternatives in its evaluation. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 26 27 7. In the present action, the Court finds dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff did not respond to the City’s motion to dismiss (Docket # 26) or the 28 2 1 Court’s order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (Docket # 27.) 2 The Court gave Plaintiff ample opportunity to do so. Plaintiff’s failure to respond 3 to the Court’s order demonstrates that she has no interest in advancing the action 4 here. 5 8. By contrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a strong 6 interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given that Plaintiff 7 effectively abandoned her case by not responding to the motion to dismiss or the 8 Court’s order. The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). 9 Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did not abide by the Court’s 10 recent order, no sanction short of dismissal will be effective in moving this case 11 forward. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 12 13 14 9. Accordingly, for the above reasons, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: January 7, 2018 18 __________________________________ HON. JESUS G. BERNAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 Presented by: 21 22 23 24 ____________________________________ HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?