Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02871/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02871-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE MARCUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02871-MMC 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On September 2, 2016, plaintiff failed to appear as ordered at a regularly 

scheduled Case Management Conference in the above-titled action. That same day, the 

Court issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause, in writing filed no later than 

September 14, 2016, why the case should not be dismissed, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to prosecute (“September 2 Order to 

Show Cause”). To date, no response to the Court’s September 2 Order to Show Cause

has been filed by plaintiff. 

Further, as noted in that order, such failure to appear was not the first instance of 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders. On August 15, 2016, the Court 

ordered plaintiff to “immediately submit” a chambers copy of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint, the operative pleading (“August 15 Order”). Thereafter, on August 24, 2016, 

no such document having been submitted, the Court issued an order directing plaintiff to 

show cause in writing, no later than August 31, 2016, why sanctions should not be 

imposed for plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's August 15 Order (“August 24 

Order to Show Cause”). To date, no response to the Court's August 24 Order to Show 

Cause has been filed, nor has a chambers copy of the operative pleading been 

Case 3:16-cv-02871-MMC Document 26 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

submitted.

Additionally, plaintiff failed to file an opposition to defendant City of Richmond’s 

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. Although, after the motion was granted,

plaintiff, with leave of court, filed the above-referenced amended complaint, plaintiff 

likewise has failed to file an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss that pleading. 

Finally, plaintiff has failed to serve six of the seven named defendants. 

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action may be 

dismissed involuntarily “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with these rules or a 

court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Such dismissal may be issued sua sponte. Hells 

Canyon Preserv. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). 

In determining whether dismissal is warranted under Rule 41(b), the court must 

weigh the following factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

(2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of 

less drastic sanctions.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . or where 

at least three factors strongly support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138

F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). Here, four factors weigh in favor of

dismissal.

The first factor, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution, “always favors 

dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The second 

factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket, also favors dismissal; plaintiff has 

repeatedly failed to comply with local rules and court orders, causing both the Court and 

counsel for the opposing party to expend time and resources to no productive end.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendants, also favors dismissal. The law 

“presumes prejudice from unreasonable delay.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. 

Liab. Litig, (In re PPA), 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, plaintiff has caused 

Case 3:16-cv-02871-MMC Document 26 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

unreasonable delay by failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this 

District’s local rules, and/or the Court’s standing orders, in that plaintiff has failed to

respond to two Orders to Show Cause, failed to appear at a mandatory case 

management conference at which opposing counsel appeared, failed to submit chambers 

copies, failed to respond to two motions to dismiss, and failed to serve six of the seven 

defendants named in the complaint. At no point has plaintiff endeavored to rebut the 

presumption of prejudice by offering any reason for any such delay, despite having been 

provided ample opportunity to do so. 

The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 

weighs against dismissal, see Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399, albeit “less strongly” if the 

dismissal is without prejudice, see McDermott v. Palo Verde Unified School Dist., 638 F.

App’x 636, 638 (9th Cir. 2016).

The final factor, availability of less drastic sanctions, weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Plaintiff’s repeated failures to obey court orders or, indeed, even to communicate with the 

Court, strongly suggests the case cannot proceed in an orderly manner and that, under 

such circumstances, the imposition of a lesser sanction than dismissal, such as a fine, 

would have no meaningful effect. 

Accordingly, for all the reasons stated, the above-titled action is hereby 

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02871-MMC Document 26 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 3