Geraldine Watson v. City of Ontario Police Department et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Josephine L. Staton. IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. (See Order for further details) (vm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

) Case No. ED CV 13-1402 JLS (MRW)
)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
vs.
) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
)
CITY OF ONTARIO POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________ )
GERALDINE WATSON,

19
20

The Court vacates the reference of this action to the Magistrate Judge and

21 dismisses the action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action.
***
22
23

This is a civil rights action brought by a former homeowner in Ontario,

24 California. Plaintiff alleges that Ontario police officers wrongly evicted Plaintiff
25 and her mother from their residence after a foreclosure.
26

Because Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge Wilner

27 preliminarily screened the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court
28 dismissed the complaint due to numerous pleading deficiencies. (Docket # 7.) The

1 Court set a deadline to allow Plaintiff to amend her complaint, but Plaintiff failed
2 to do so. (Id. at 4.) The Court then issued an order to show cause. (Docket # 9.)
3 Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s OSC deadline.
4

Plaintiff originally filed the complaint in August 2013. Since then, Plaintiff

5 has not filed anything with the Court nor has she amended her deficient complaint.
6 In both orders, the Court expressly informed Plaintiff that the action would be
7 dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 if Plaintiff did not respond to
8 the Court’s orders.
9
10

***
Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with

11 these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
12 claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the Court sua sponte. Link v.
13 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). Dismissal of a civil action under Rule
14 41 may be appropriate to advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution
15 of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of
16 prejudice to defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.
17 2010); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992). Additionally, a
18 court should consider the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits
19 and the availability of less drastic alternatives in its evaluation. Carey v. King, 856
20 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir.
21 1986).
22

In the present action, the Court finds dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff

23 failed to comply with the Court’s clear and direct instructions on several occasions.
24 Plaintiff did not amend the complaint or respond to the order to show cause by the
25 deadlines that the Court set. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not
26 wish to advance the action here. By contrast, the Court, the named defendants, and
27 the public have a strong interest in terminating this action. The Court finds that
28
2

1 dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro
2 se litigant who has not responded to the Court’s most recent notice about the status
3 of the case, no sanction short of dismissal will be effective in moving this case
4 forward. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.
5

Accordingly, for the above reasons, this action is DISMISSED without

6 prejudice.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9 DATED: December 1, 2013
10
11

___________________________________
HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3