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)

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