Johnson v. Chan et al

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/19/21 DISMISSING case against Haneshinder Singh Chauhan for Johnson's failure to comply with court orders and prosecute the case. All other defendants are terminated. See ECF No. 62. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Scott Johnson,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-00138-KJM-AC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Haneshinder Singh Chauhan,
Defendant.

16
17

On May 18, 2021, plaintiff Scott Johnson requested an entry of default as to defendant

18

Haneshinder Singh Chauhan. Req. for Entry of Default, ECF No. 66. The Clerk of Court

19

declined the request, ECF No. 67, and the court directed Johnson to cure the identified

20

deficiencies and renew the request by June 25, 2021. Minute Order, ECF No. 68. The court

21

warned that it “anticipate[d] dismissing the case against defendant Haneshinder Singh Chauhan”

22

for failure to prosecute if Johnson did not cure the deficiencies and “adequately brief the issue of

23

damages.” Id. Johnson did not file a renewed request for default. On September 28, 2021, the

24

court ordered Johnson to show cause, within fourteen days, why this case should not be dismissed

25

for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). With the fourteen days now

26

expired, Johnson has filed only two documents: a notice of appearance by a new attorney, ECF

27

No. 70, and a renewed request for entry of default, ECF No. 71. The Clerk’s office once again

28

declined the request. ECF No. 72. Johnson has neither addressed the order to show cause nor
1

1

cured the defects of his request, as his renewed filing is the identical to the prior, apart from the

2

attorney signature.

3

In deciding to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, the court considers

4

five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

5

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

6

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v.

7

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992) (citation omitted).

8

“[I]t is not required that the district court make explicit findings in order to show that it has

9

considered these factors.” Id. Having considered the relevant factors, the court dismisses the

10

case against Haneshinder Singh Chauhan for Johnson’s failure to comply with court orders

11

and prosecute the case.

12

All other defendants are terminated. See ECF No. 62.

13

The clerk is directed to close the case.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: October 19, 2021.

16

2