Hanson v. Dowling et al

Filing 24

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/6/2025. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTINA J. HANSON,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 23

CHARLES D. DOWLING, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-01473-HSG

12
13

Pro se Plaintiff Christina Hanson failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause,

14

Dkt. No. 23. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

15

I.

BACKRGOUND

16

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed this action, alleging that the National Security Agency

17

(NSA) installed a “harness on [her] head” and that NSA employee Charles Dowling was “hacking

18

[her] server.” Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Dowling via the United States

19

Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. See Dkt. No. 7. On April 18, 2024, the

20

U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a letter informing the Court that the NSA has “no record of an NSA

21

employee named Charles D. Dowling, going as far back as the 1990s.” Dkt. No. 12. The U.S.

22

Marshals Service was unable to serve the other Defendants because they could not be located at

23

the addresses provided by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 11. On October 3, 2024, the Court concluded

24

that Plaintiff’s complaint lacked minimal legal viability under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and

25

dismissed it with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 21. When Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading,

26

the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed

27

for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order by the

28

December 11, 2024 deadline (and has not responded to date). For the reasons set forth below, this

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

2

II.

DISCUSSION

3

The district court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with a

4

court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of

5

prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but

6

by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly

7

and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962).

8

“Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be imposed in

9

extreme circumstances.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations

10

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal for failure to prosecute “operates as

11

an adjudication on the merits” unless the order says otherwise).

12

Courts “must weigh five factors” in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61. A court need not make “explicit findings in order to show that it has

17

considered these factors,” although such findings are preferred. Id. at 1261. Here, the Court finds

18

that these factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

19

First, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors

20

dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v. Cal.

21

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). That is true here. Plaintiff did not amend her

22

complaint and failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff has

23

not communicated with the Court in over three months. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s lack

24

of responsiveness contravenes the “public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation.” See

25

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal.

26

Second, it is “incumbent” upon courts “to manage [their] docket[s] without being subject

27

to routine noncompliance” of litigants. See id. (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261). Moreover, “[t]he

28

trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular case interferes with
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

docket management and the public interest.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated “routine

2

noncompliance”: she failed to timely file an amended complaint or respond to the Order to Show

3

Cause as detailed above. See Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff’s noncompliance “has consumed some of the

4

court’s time that could have been devoted to other cases on the docket.” See Pagtalunan, 291

5

F.3d at 642. This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal.

6

Third, in order to prove prejudice, “a defendant must establish that plaintiff’s actions

7

impaired defendant’s ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision

8

of the case.” Id. (citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987)).1

9

“Whether prejudice is sufficient to support an order of dismissal is in part judged with reference to

10

the strength of the plaintiff’s excuse for the default.” Id. (citation omitted). In Malone, which

11

involved a Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, the district court found

12

the plaintiff’s excuse for her failure to comply with a pretrial order to be “groundless,” justifying

13

dismissal. Id. And in Yourish, which also involved plaintiffs who failed to obey a court order, the

14

court concluded that the defendants had suffered “sufficient prejudice” where the plaintiffs had

15

only a “paltry excuse” for why they failed to timely amend their complaint. 191 F.3d at 991–92.

16

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to timely amend her complaint or obey a show cause order.

17

Moreover, Plaintiff has provided no reason for her noncompliance. This factor therefore weighs in

18

favor of dismissal.

19

Fourth, the Court has attempted to avail itself of less drastic alternatives that have proven

20

ineffective in advancing the case. The Court entered an order to show cause, expressly warning

21

Plaintiff that her case was at risk of dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Dkt. No. 23. She failed

22

to respond. This factor therefore weighs in favor of dismissal. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262

23

(stating that Ninth Circuit authority “suggest[s] that a district court’s warning to a party that his [or

24

her] failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of

25

alternatives’ requirement”).
The last factor—the public policy favoring disposition on the merits—weighs against

26
27
28

1

Here, Defendants have not been served and it is not clear whether Defendants actually exist.
3

1

dismissal here, as it always will even when a party entirely fails to prosecute. See Pagtalunan,

2

291 F.3d at 643.

3

III.

CONCLUSION
Because four of the five factors weigh in favor of dismissal, the Court finds that dismissal

4
5

of Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute is appropriate. The Court thus DISMISSES this case

6

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is directed to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated:

1/6/2025
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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
4