Carlos Anthony Miranda v. Lewandowski et al, No. 2:2012cv00794 - Document 9 (C.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge S. James Otero: (See document for details.) (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED-SOUTHERN DIVISION CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 1 MAY 2320\2. 2 3 CENTRAl..: I;!l~lR1CT OF CAlgfr~ o BY 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 Case No. CV 12-0794-SJO (MLG) 12 CARLOS ANTHONY MIRANDA, 13 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Plaintiff, v. 15 CCII LEWANDOwsKi" et al., I 16 Defendant. 17 18 This is a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Plaintiff, who is not incarcerated, filed this pro se 20 civil rights action on February 3, 2012. On February 7, 2012, the 21 Court directed that the United States Marshal effect service upon all 22 named defendants. On February 8, 2012, copies of the complaints and 23 summonses were sent to Plaintiff with instructions, in order for him 24 to complete the necessary paperwork and forward the packets to the 25 united 26 forwarded the documents to the United States Marshal for service. 27 // 28 // States Marshal for service of process. Plaintiff never 1 On April 23, 2012, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff 2 to show cause in writing, on or before May 11, 2012, why the action 3 should not be dismissed for failure to take the necessary steps to 4 effect service. Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause. 5 This action shall be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The 6 Court has the inherent 7 plaintiff's failure to diligently prosecute or comply with a court 8 order. Fed.R.Civ.p. 41(b); Local Rule 12.1. See Link v. Wabash R.R. 9 Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-630 (1962). "Dismissal is a harsh penalty and 10 is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances." Henderson v. Duncan, 11 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 12 the following factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for 13 lack 14 resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; 15 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 16 favoring 17 availability of less drastic sanctions." 18 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th 19 Cir. 1994) 20 Here, of prosecution: disposition power "(1) of the cases to dismiss an action based on a The Court is required to weigh public's on interest in expeditious (4) the public policy their merits; and (5) the Omstead v. Dell, Inc, 594 (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423). the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of 21 litigation and the court's interest in managing its docket weighs in 22 favor of dismissal. 23 court's 24 dismissal would not undermine the public policy favoring disposition 25 of cases on the merits. 26 of 27 without Plaintiff having forwarded the necessary papers for service 28 of process. service prejudice to Given Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order or respond to the order to show cause, In addition, there is no identifiable risk Defendants. Finally, three months have elapsed He has failed to request an extension of time to forward 2 1 the documents or demonstrate good cause for failing to perform this 2 ministerial act. 3 4 5 Balancing all of these factors, dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute is warranted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 May 23, 2012. 7 Dated: 8 9 10 S. James Otero United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 Marc L. Goldman United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
