Mohammad v. California Department of Corrections

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case file. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 6/17/2015. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MOHAMMAD,

Case No. 14-cv-03837-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

Defendant.

12
13

This is a putative civil rights action brought by pro se plaintiff Khalid Mohammad against

14

the California Department of Corrections and a number of unnamed “Doe” Defendants. On

15

February 18, 2015, this Court granted the Motion to Dismiss by defendant California Department

16

of Corrections and dismissed that defendant from the case. Order, ECF 16. The Court did not

17

dismiss Plaintiff’s case entirely, finding that he should have an opportunity to identify and serve

18

the Doe Defendants he alleged in his complaint. Id. at 2, 6. The Court held an Initial Case

19

Management Conference on April 9, 2015 and Plaintiff did not appear. On April 10, 2015, the

20

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

21

prosecute. Plaintiff was ordered to respond by June 12, 2015. OSC, ECF 19. To date, Plaintiff

22

has not responded to the Order to Show Cause, nor has he named the Doe Defendants or in any

23

other way communicated to the Court his intent to prosecute this action.

24

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), “the district court may dismiss an action for

25

failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

26

1992). “[T]he district court must weigh the following factors in determining whether a Rule 41(b)

27

dismissal is warranted: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

28

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

1

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’”

2

Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779

3

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Court has carefully considered these factors and finds that they weigh in favor of

4
5

dismissal without prejudice. As to the first and second factors, “[t]he public’s interest in

6

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d

7

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999), and the court must be able to manage its docket so that routine non-

8

compliance with rules and orders does not divert “valuable time that [the court] could have

9

devoted to other major and serious criminal civil cases on its docket,” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261.
Both of these factors weigh in favor of dismissal due to Plaintiff’s failure to make scheduled court

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

appearances and to respond to orders by the Court. The third factor is neutral because there are no

12

named defendants in this case. Likewise, the fourth factor is also neutral because there can be no

13

disposition of this case on the merits without actual defendants. The fifth factor favors dismissal.

14

The Court in ruling on the California Department of Corrections’ motion to dismiss avoided

15

dismissing Plaintiff’s case in its entirety and permitted him time to identify the individual Doe

16

Defendants by name. Moreover, once Plaintiff had failed to respond in a timely manner and to

17

appear for a pre-scheduled court appearance, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. In the

18

face of Plaintiff’s continued silence, the Court can conceive of no less drastic sanction than

19

dismissal without prejudice.
This action is accordingly DISMISSED without prejudice.1 The Clerk of the Court shall

20
21

close the case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: June 17, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
1

27
28

The Motion to Intervene filed by proposed-intervenors Lisa M. Tullis, Wayde Albright, Timmy
J. Jones and Fainulele LeLani, ECF 20, is DENIED as moot because there is no action in which to
intervene. In any case, because dismissal is without prejudice, proposed-intervenors are not
precluded from pursuing their own claims in a separate action.
2