Majlessi v. Public Storage Co. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02092

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

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 SAID MAJLESSI, Case No.: 15-CV-2092 YGR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 9 v. 10 PUBLIC STORAGE CO., et al., 11 Defendants. Northern District of California 12 United States District Court 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. 10 This Order terminates this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Date: April 4, 2016 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2