Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02489/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02489-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Judicial Review of Agency Decision

---

– 1 – 15cv2489 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ISRAEL GONZALEZ MORALES, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

Case No. 15-cv-2489-BAS(JMA) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 v. 

JEH JOHNSON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Plaintiffs commenced this action on November 3, 2015. There was no activity 

during the subsequent six months, including no indication that Plaintiffs had served 

the complaint on Defendants. On June 6, 2016, the Court held a noticed hearing for 

dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) 

and Civil Local Rule 41.1. Counsel appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs at the dismissal 

hearing, and the Court gave Plaintiffs leave to complete service within 30 days. To 

date, there remains no indication that Plaintiffs have served the complaint. 

“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, ‘[i]n the 

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 

Case 3:15-cv-02489-BAS-JMA Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 3
 – 2 – 15cv2489 

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 

dismissal of a case.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(quoting Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); accord 

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (holding courts are vested with an 

inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases”). This inherent power exists independently of a 

district court’s authority to dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b). Link, 370 U.S. at 630-32. “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty 

and, therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1260. 

The circumstances in which a court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss 

an action include where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case, failed to comply 

with a court order, or engaged in judge shopping. Link, 370 U.S. at 630; Yourish v. 

Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th Cir. 1999); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 

138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether to exercise this power, 

“the district court must weigh five factors including (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 alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1260-61 (quoting Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; Thompson, 782 F.2d 829 at 831) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “The first two of these factors favor the 

imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default 

or dismissal sanction.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Id. Although 

it is preferred, the district court is not required to “make explicit findings in order to 

show that it has considered these factors.” Ferdik, 963 F.3d at 1261. 

 Under the circumstances of this case, and as recognized by the Ninth Circuit, 

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to 

manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal while the public policy favoring 

Case 3:15-cv-02489-BAS-JMA Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 3
 – 3 – 15cv2489 

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 

disposition of cases on their merits weighs against dismissal. See Wanderer, 910 F.2d 

at 656. Risk of prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 

prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will 

result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 

963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The 

Court held a hearing on June 6, 2016 to determine whether dismissal was appropriate 

given Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action and serve the complaint, but the Court 

ultimately gave Plaintiffs 30 days to complete service. Consequently, Plaintiffs had 

adequate warning that failure to serve the complaint may result in dismissal of this 

action, and the factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 

 In light of the foregoing, the Court exercises its inherent power to dismiss this 

action for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and for failure to follow a court order. 

Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its 

entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 19, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-02489-BAS-JMA Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 3