Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01750/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01750-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331vc Fed. Question: Violation of Constitutional 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK MATTHEW CARMICHAEL,

ROBERT E. BASKIN on behalf of

STARS IN THE SKY TRUST,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PETER

ESTES, SUMMER STEPHAN,

MICHAEL HOLMES, JOHN STALEY,

AUTONATION DBA BMW OF

ENCINITAS, TOYOTA OF

ESCONDIDO, AND DOES 1-10

inclusive,

 Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01750-GPC-AGS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE FOR WHY THIS ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED.

(ECF No. 20.) 

The instant order arises from a defendant’s motion to dismiss the case for 

failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 20.) Finding that a less drastic sanction than outright 

dismissal would be more appropriate under the circumstances, the Court DENIES the 

motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, on or

before May 8, 2020, why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Failure to timely respond to this Order will result in dismissal of this action.

Case 3:19-cv-01750-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 04/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

I. Background

On September 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Kirk Matthew Carmichael (“Plaintiff”) and 

Robert E. Baskin (“Trustee”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of the Stars in the 

Sky Trust (“Trust”), filed a complaint alleging a wide variety of constitutional and 

statutory violations against the Defendants County of San Diego, Peters Esters, 

Summer Stephan, Michael Holmes, John Staley, AutoNation DBA BMW of 

Encinitas, Toyota of Escondido, and multiple Doe individuals. (ECF No. 1.) Three of 

these Defendants – John Staley, Michael Holmes, and the County of San Diego 

(“County”) – then filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a 

claim. (ECF Nos. 4, 6, 10.) 

On December 10, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without 

prejudice for a number of reasons, including that:

The complaint does not provide for Trust and Trustee’s standing as pled. 

The complaint also stems from an ongoing state prosecution and is thus 

barred by the Younger doctrine. In addition, Plaintiffs rely on several 

statutes which simply do not give them the right to sue. Lastly, Plaintiffs 

fail to plead facts to support a recoverable theory on the remaining 

statutes and constitutional provisions, and the attachments do not cure 

that deficiency because they are too voluminous and attenuated to the 

complaint to support Plaintiffs’ claims.

(ECF No. 19 at 12.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, if 

possible, to address the deficiencies identified in its December 10, 2019 Order. (Id.)

Four months have since passed. Defendant Michael Holmes has filed a motion 

to dismiss for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 20.) Defendant Holmes argues that 

Plaintiff’s failure to amend evinces an intent to accept dismissal and appeal. (Id. at 3–

4.) Defendant Holmes further asserts that, in light of the Plaintiff’s failure to file an 

amended complaint, the Court is well within its authority to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

complaint with prejudice. (Id.)

Case 3:19-cv-01750-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 04/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

II. Legal Standard 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a defendant to “move to 

dismiss the action or any claim against it” where “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 

comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also Fetuao-SalaitaTitie v. First Magnus Fin. Corp., No. 09-CV-0822-JM, 2009 WL 2762677, at *2 (S.D. 

Cal. Aug. 28, 2009) (dismissing for failure to prosecute after plaintiff did not file an 

amended complaint in the wake of the court’s order of dismissal).

However, “[d]ismissal is a harsh penalty and is to be imposed only in extreme 

circumstances.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 

must weigh several factors in determining whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution: 

“(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.” Id.

III. Analysis

Here, three of the Henderson factors weigh against dismissal. As to the first 

factor, Plaintiff’s suit was only filed in September, and during that time Plaintiff made 

efforts to respond to multiple motions to dismiss. See Ott v. Mortg. Inv’rs Corp. of 

Ohio, 65 F. Supp. 3d 1046, 1069 (D. Or. 2014) (“This case has been pending only 

seven months, during which time plaintiffs have diligently responded to each of 

defendants’ numerous motions.”). As to the fourth factor, the case remains in the 

pleading stages. As to the fifth factor, the Court has yet to take less drastic sanctions, 

including the issuance of an order to show cause or an order declaring a date by which 

an amended complaint should be filed. See Ervin v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:12-CV01595-KJM, 2013 WL 1876619, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2013) (concluding the fifth 

factor favored dismissal only after “pursu[ing] remedies that are less drastic than a 

recommendation of dismissal,” including the issuance of an order to show cause).

Case 3:19-cv-01750-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 04/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

The two remaining factors are more neutral. Here, there is no indication of a 

risk to the Court’s management of its docket. Lalau v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 938 F. 

Supp. 2d 1000, 1008–09 (D. Haw. 2013) (finding the second factor neutral where the 

“the record does not indicate that the court’s management of its docket has been 

thwarted”). Likewise, Defendants make no showing as to a risk of prejudice. And, 

“[d]elay alone will not support dismissal.” Id. (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 

(“A dismissal for lack of prosecution must be supported by a showing of unreasonable 

delay.”)); cf. also Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991)

(affirming dismissal where a party “unnecessarily delayed the adjudication of the 

federal claims for almost two years”).

Consequently, the Court DENIES Defendant Holmes’s motion. On the balance, 

the five Henderson factors do not favor dismissal at this time.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Holmes’s motion to 

dismiss for failure to prosecute. Nonetheless, the Court observes that the case has been 

inactive for four months without explanation. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED 

TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, on or before May 8, 2020, why this matter should not 

be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to timely respond to this Order will result 

in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01750-GPC-AGS Document 21 Filed 04/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4