Ronald Phillips v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. (es)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 16 ) Case No. CV 20-1858-FMO (JPR) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding 17 pro se, filed a civil-rights action against Los Angeles County 18 and the Los Angeles County Public Defender in their official 19 capacity and Robert G. Noguchi, a deputy public defender, and 20 Does in their individual and official capacities, seeking 21 declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs. 22 (Compl. at 3, 6.)1 23 in forma pauperis. 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 RONALD PHILLIPS, He was subsequently granted leave to proceed On April 1, 2020, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend because it failed to state any claim. The Court 26 27 28 1 Because the Complaint is not consecutively paginated, the Court uses the pagination generated by its Case Management/ Electronic Case Filing system. 1 1 warned Plaintiff that if he wished to pursue his claims, he had 2 to timely file an amended complaint or the lawsuit would likely 3 be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to 4 prosecute. 5 complaint, which the Court granted; the amended complaint was due 6 August 21. 7 requested another extension of time to do so. 8 9 He requested an extension of time to file his amended To date he has neither filed an amended complaint nor Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 10 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. 11 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke 12 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 13 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 14 calendars of the District Courts.”). 15 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 16 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 17 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 19 of less drastic sanctions.” 20 omitted). 21 prejudice to the defendants that can be overcome only with an 22 affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff. 23 Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 24 See also Link v. A court must consider “(1) Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (citation Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of See In re Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 25 militate in favor of dismissal. 26 offered no explanation for his failure to file an amended 27 complaint. 28 prejudice to Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff has Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of No less drastic sanction is available, 2 1 as Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim and cannot be 2 ordered served, and he is unable or unwilling to comply with the 3 Court’s instructions for fixing his allegations. 4 Plaintiff’s claims can be ordered served, the Court is unable to 5 manage its docket. 6 against dismissal — as it always does — together the other 7 factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case 8 on its merits. 9 (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se Because none of Although the fourth Carey factor weighs See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-62 10 civil-rights action for failure to timely file amended complaint 11 remedying deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F. 12 App’x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se 13 civil-rights action for failure to state claim or timely file 14 amended complaint). 15 16 17 18 ORDER Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 19 20 DATED: FERNANDO M. OLGUIN U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 /s/ September 15, 2020 Presented by: 23 24 Jean Rosenbluth U.S. 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?