Umut Birbas v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

Filing 8

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order (1) DISMISSING Plaintiffs Complaint for Failure to Prosecute and (2) DIRECTING the Clerk to Close the Case by Judge Jesus G. Bernal 7 . Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (twdb)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 20-1131 JGB (SHKx)

Date November 17, 2022

Title Umut Birbas v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order (1) DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute
and (2) DIRECTING the Clerk to Close the Case (IN CHAMBERS)

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Umut Birbas filed his complaint. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.)
On October 25, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by November 7, 2022
why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (“OSC,” Dkt. No. 7.) As the
Court noted in its OSC, since the filing of the Complaint, there has been virtually no activity in
the case. (See id.) As of November 14, 2022, Plaintiff has neither continued to prosecute his
case nor responded to the Court’s OSC.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss
actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b);
Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). Plaintiffs must prosecute their cases
with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,
542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s OSC by the
deadline imposed by the Court. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case
with reasonable diligence and that dismissal is therefore appropriate.
Before dismissing an action for either failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or
failure to follow the local rules, a court must weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk mg

(failure to follow local rules); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to
prosecute or to comply with a court order). The Court need not weigh these factors explicitly.
See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53–54.
The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Both the Court and the public benefit from
the expeditious resolution of this action because further delay will impede judicial efficiency. See
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“fail[ing] to pursue the case for almost four months” favors
dismissal). Additional delay will also prejudice Defendants, forcing them to spend needless
resources on contesting this matter; in fact, Plaintiff has already unreasonably delayed this action
without explanation. See Sw. Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Unreasonable delay is the foundation upon which a court may presume prejudice.”).
Moreover, less drastic sanctions are not realistic: Plaintiff has yet to pursue this case in any
meaningful way since the filing of the Complaint and is unlikely to do so in the future.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute and
DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk mg