Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04330/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04330-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04330-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 10

Pro se plaintiff David Thomas filed a complaint on September 22, 2015, against the City 

and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco District Attorney, and a number of members of 

the San Francisco Police Department. Dkt. No. 1. On January 14, 2016, the Court ordered 

Thomas to show cause by January 22, 2016, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute and why he should not be sanctioned for failing to appear at a case management 

conference on January 13, 2016. Dkt. No. 10. The Court also directed Thomas to serve process 

on defendants by the January 20, 2016 deadline set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or 

show good cause for not effecting service. Id.

Thomas has not responded to these orders. In addition, there is still no indication in the 

ECF docket that plaintiff has served a summons on any of the defendants, or even requested the 

Clerk of the Court to issue a summons. Consequently, the Court dismisses the action for failure to 

prosecute.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides the Court with authority to dismiss a case 

for failure to prosecute or to comply with any of its orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘In determining whether to dismiss a claim for 

Case 3:15-cv-04330-JD Document 11 Filed 01/28/16 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

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less 

drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.’” See 

Espinosa v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. C 10-04464 SBA, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

31, 2011) (quoting Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

Application of these factors here weighs in favor of dismissal. Thomas has failed to 

respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, despite having been warned that the case might be 

dismissed as a result for failure to prosecute. See Dkt. No. 10. With respect to the first factor, 

“‘[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.’” 

Espinosa, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 

1999)). For the second factor, the Court must be able to manage its docket “without being subject 

to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1261 (non-compliance with a court’s order diverts “valuable time that [the court] could have 

devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil cases on its docket.”) For the third factor, 

“‘a presumption of prejudice arises from the plaintiff[’s] failure to prosecute.’” See Holland v. 

Farrow, No. 14-CV-01349-JST, 2015 WL 1738394, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) (quoting 

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400 (9th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiff has done nothing at 

all to rebut that presumption, and so this factor weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. With respect 

to the fourth factor, the Court already issued an Order to Show Cause, which provided Thomas 

with notice of his failure to appear at the case management conference, and a warning about the 

upcoming deadline to serve defendants or request an extension. See Dkt. No. 10. The Court’s 

issuance of the Order to Show Cause satisfies the requirement that the Court consider less drastic 

sanctions. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Although the fifth factor -- the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits -- might weigh against dismissal, on its own, the cumulative 

weight of the other factors overrides it. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (finding district court did 

not abuse its discretion in dismissing case where three of the five factors weighed in favor of 

dismissal).

Case 3:15-cv-04330-JD Document 11 Filed 01/28/16 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

Dismissal of this case is also warranted independently under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m), which directs the Court to dismiss the action without prejudice or order that 

service be made within a certain period, if a defendant is not served within a specified time after 

the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In the Order to Show Cause, the Court notified 

Thomas that the deadline for service was approaching on January 20, 2016, and that the case 

would be dismissed if he did not serve the defendants by the deadline or demonstrate good cause 

for his failure by January 22, 2016. Dkt. No. 10 at 1-2. Thomas did not respond. 

CONCLUSION

Because four of the five relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and because the 

plaintiff has failed to effect timely service under Rule 4(m), Court dismisses this case in its 

entirety without prejudice. The clerk will enter judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04330-JD Document 11 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3