Levy v. Comerica Bank

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/3/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MARC OLIN LEVY
No. CV 12-01296 MEJ

7
Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
vs.

9
COMERICA BANK,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Defendant.
11

/

12
13

On April 10, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and

14

dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 6. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file any

15

amended complaint by May 8, 2012, and warned him that failure to file an amended complaint may

16

result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. As Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint,

17

the Court ordered him to show cause by June 28, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for

18

failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 7. The Court informed Plaintiff that it may dismiss the case if he

19

failed to file a responsive pleading. Plaintiff has failed to respond.

20

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), failure to comply with a court order can

21

warrant dismissal. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In “determining

22

whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five

23

factors including ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need

24

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

25

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Id. at 1260-

26

61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, Plaintiff failed to

27

comply with Court orders and deadlines, failed to respond to the order to show cause, and has made

28

no appearance in this matter since the Court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. Thus, as

1

there is no pending complaint, the Court finds that the Ferdik factors weigh in favor of dismissal and

2

hereby DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
Dated: July 3, 2012
5

MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
MARC OLIN LEVY,

Case Number: CV12-1296 MEJ

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
COMERICA et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 3, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located
in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16
17

Marc Olin Levy
505 Cypress Avenue, #205
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dated: July 3, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Rose Maher, Deputy Clerk

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3