Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01760/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01760-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS PENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTAHAR MOTAHAR,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-01760-DAD-CKD

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION DUE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On November 27, 2024, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause, in 

writing no later than December 4, 2024, “why this action should not be dismissed due to 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to serve defendant in compliance with 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) Therein, plaintiff was

cautioned that his “failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed.” 

(Id.) Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to that order has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed a 

response or otherwise communicated with the court.

In light of plaintiff’s repeated failures to timely respond to orders of this court (see Doc. 

Nos. 4, 5, 6), it appears that plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute this action but rather has

abandoned the litigation. Indeed, plaintiff has filed nothing in this action since his complaint on 

June 21, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.)

/////

Case 2:24-cv-01760-DAD-CKD Document 7 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 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

2

The factors to be weighed in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution 

are as follows: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 

291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 

1998).

Moreover, the Local Rules of this court state that the failure of a party to comply with any 

order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. A party’s 

failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other 

sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 

complaint), as amended (May 22, 1992). “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty and, 

therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260 (9th 

Cir. 1992).

Here, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage 

its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant all support the imposition of the sanction of 

dismissal here. Only the public policy favoring disposition on the merits counsels against 

dismissal. However, plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action makes disposition on the merits an 

impossibility. Finally, with respect to availability of less drastic sanctions, the court has 

considered alternative measures. The issuance of yet another order to show cause would be futile 

under the circumstances presented.

Accordingly, this action will be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure 

to comply with the court’s orders.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:24-cv-01760-DAD-CKD Document 7 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 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

3

For the reasons set forth above,

1. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failures to respond to the November 27, 

2024 order to show cause (Doc. No. 6), to prosecute this action, and to obey court 

orders; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01760-DAD-CKD Document 7 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 3