Lynn Gavin et al v. San Francisco Housing Authority et al

Filing 29

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE re 26 Order on Motion to Dismiss and Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Proof of service on the federal defendants must be filed by 2/10/2017. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/25/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LYNN GAVIN, ET AL.,

Case No. 16-cv-04974-YGR

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET
AL.,

Re: Dkt. No. 26

Defendants.

13
14

By Order issued November 16, 2016 (Dkt. No. 26), plaintiff was directed to serve federal

15

defendants no later than January 16, 2017 and to file the proof of service. As of January 23, 2017,

16

plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order. Plaintiff has not filed anything with the Court

17

since October 5, 2016. (Dkt. No. 25.)

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987).

25

Here, the Court warned plaintiff in its Order that it was considering dismissing this lawsuit.

26

Nonetheless, plaintiff has not served federal defendants. Furthermore, it has been more than three

27

months since plaintiff has communicated with the Court. Pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Court may

28

dismiss an action in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency for failure to prosecute.

1

The Court will provide plaintiff with one more opportunity to show intent to prosecute this

2

case. Accordingly, a proof of service on the federal defendants must be filed by Friday, February

3

10, 2017. If it is not filed, the case will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the federal

4

defendants for failure to prosecute on Monday, February 13, 2017.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 25, 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2