Benny Carranza v. Ralph Diaz et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge Dolly M. Gee. [See order for details.] (es)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EASTERN DIVISION

BENNY CARRANZA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. ED CV 21-56-DMG (DFM)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
RALPH DIAZ et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
In December 2020, Benny Carranza (“Plaintiff”), a California state
inmate, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1.
On January 12, 2021, the matter was transferred from the Eastern District of
California to the Central District. See Dkt. 4. On February 17, the assigned
Magistrate Judge dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. See Dkt. 7.
Plaintiff was afforded thirty-five (35) days to decide whether to voluntarily
dismiss the matter without prejudice, elect to stand on the Complaint, or file
an amended complaint. See id. at 6. Plaintiff was explicitly warned that
failure to act could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. See id. at 7.
Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of
Magistrate Judge” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which was
denied by the Court on April 13, 2021. See Dkt. 9. In order to afford Plaintiff

adequate time to cure the deficiencies of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s deadline to
file an amended complaint was extended to twenty-eight (28) days after service
of the Order. See id. at 3. That deadline has passed without any filing from
Plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
District courts have the inherent power to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a
court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). In Carey
v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit cited the following
factors as relevant to the Court’s determination whether to dismiss an action
for failure to prosecute: “(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 on their
merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440.
Here, the first and second factor favor dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal.
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). Plaintiff has
failed to respond to the Court’s order or seek an extension. Plaintiff’s conduct
hinders the Court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and indicates
that he does not intend to litigate this action diligently.
The third Carey factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. A rebuttable
presumption of prejudice to the defendant arises when there is a failure to
prosecute diligently. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994).
That presumption may be rebutted where a plaintiff proffers an excuse for
delay. Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any excuse or reason for delay
despite being invited to do so.

2

The fourth factor generally weighs against dismissal; however, it
assumes that a litigant has complied with the statutory obligations imposed
under Rule 11(b) and has manifested a diligent desire to prosecute his or her
claims. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d
1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]his factor lends little support to a party whose
responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose
conduct impedes progress in that direction.” (citation omitted)). Where, as
here, the prisoner-plaintiff has failed to respond to a valid Court order, the
fourth factor favors dismissal.
Finally, the fifth factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, weighs
in favor of dismissal where, as here, the Court explicitly warned Plaintiff of the
need to file a response, lest this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[A] district
court’s warning to a party that his or her failure to obey the court’s order will
result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.”).
Taking all the Carey factors into account, the Court finds that the public
policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits does not outweigh
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint or respond to the Court’s
orders.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

3