Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01341/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01341-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNIE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-1341 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE

On December 13, 2005, the Court granted defendants’ motion for an order to show

cause why the instant action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On

January 6, 2006, plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to the order to show cause, in which he

attests that he has not heard from plaintiff “for at least eight months” and, despite

numerous attempts to locate him, has been unable to determine plaintiff’s whereabouts. 

(See Robinson Decl. ¶ 2-5.) Plaintiff’s counsel requests a stay of six months in order to

continue his efforts to locate plaintiff; in the alternative, plaintiff’s counsel requests dismissal

without prejudice, to allow for refiling if plaintiff is located. On January 13, 2006,

defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s response.

“In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute . . . , 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 the merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,

Case 3:05-cv-01341-MMC Document 45 Filed 01/17/06 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

642 (9th Cir. 2002).

In considering these factors, the Court first notes that “the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” See id. (finding failure to

pursue action for four months weighed in favor of dismissal). Here, Davis’ failure to contact

his counsel for “at least eight months,” (see Robinson Decl. ¶ 2), weighs in favor of

dismissal.

Under the circumstances presented herein, the Court’s need to manage its docket

likewise favors dismissal, as Davis’ extended absence has brought the progress of the

litigation to a halt. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999)

(finding this factor “strongly favored” dismissal where plaintiffs’ failure to timely amend

complaint had caused “the action to come to a complete halt” and had allowed plaintiffs “to

control the pace of the docket rather than the Court”); see also Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at

642 (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to the

routine noncompliance of litigants”). 

Next, failure to dismiss the action would risk prejudice to the defendants. The

instant action was filed in state court more than two years ago, based on events that are

alleged to have occurred in 2002. Davis has been absent from the litigation for eight of the

ten months since the first defendant was served in March 2005, and his counsel sets forth

no facts indicating Davis will be located in the foreseeable future. Any further extension will

only serve to increase the likelihood that evidence in support of the defense will be lost due

to the passage of time, and will unreasonably delay the progress of the action, thereby

prejudicing defendants, who are entitled to a prompt resolution of the allegations against

them. See id. at 643 (“Unnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’

memories will fade and evidence will become stale.”); see also Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92

(noting “unreasonable delay” may constitute prejudice to defendant). 

With respect to the availability of less drastic alternatives, Davis’ disappearance

renders any other sanction meaningless. There is no sanction the Court could impose that

would compel Davis to participate in the litigation. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of

Case 3:05-cv-01341-MMC Document 45 Filed 01/17/06 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

dismissal.

Finally, because public policy generally favors disposition of cases on their merits,

see Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643, this factor weighs against dismissal.

Accordingly, four of the five factors weighing in favor of dismissal, the Court hereby

DISMISSES the instant action without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01341-MMC Document 45 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 3