Majlessi v. Public Storage Co. et al

Filing 22

ORDER Dismissing Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/4/2016. (ygrlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

SAID MAJLESSI,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 15-CV-2092 YGR
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

v.
PUBLIC STORAGE CO., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Said Majlessi, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Public Storage

14

Company and PSSC Insurance Solutions. By order dated November 5, 2015, the Court directed

15

Plaintiff to amend his complaint to allege subject matter jurisdiction properly. (Dkt. No. 16.) On

16

Plaintiff’s request the Court granted him an extension through January 29, 2016 to file his amended

17

complaint. (Dkt. No. 18.) Plaintiff did not comply. Further, the Court set a Case Management

18

Conference for March 7, 2016 (Dkt. No. 19), and Plaintiff failed to file any statement, otherwise

19

contact the Court in response thereto, or attend the scheduled conference (see Dkt. No. 20.) The

20

Court thereafter issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure

21

to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 21.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any response to the

22

Court’s Order to Show Cause.

23

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to

24

prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962)

25

(recognizing courts’ inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution); McKeever v. Block, 932

26

F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (same). But such a dismissal should only be ordered when the failure

27

to comply is unreasonable. McKeever, 932 F.2d at 797. A district court should afford the litigant

28

1

prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128,

2

132-33 (9th Cir. 1987).

3

Here, the Court warned Plaintiff in its Order to Show Cause dated March 7, 2016 that it was

4

considering dismissing his lawsuit for failure to prosecute this action. Plaintiff has continued to

5

miss deadlines and to date has not met his obligation to amend his complaint and assert subject

6

matter jurisdiction properly. Furthermore, it has been more than four months since Plaintiff has

7

communicated with the Court. Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency to

8

dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

9

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
This Order terminates this case.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Date: April 4, 2016
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2