Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02000/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02000-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARISSA BURTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-02000-DC-DMC

ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION DUE 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

On October 31, 2024, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause, within 

seven days, “why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and 

failure to obey court orders, including the Local Rules.” (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiff’s deadline to 

respond to that order has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response or a request for an 

extension of time in which to do so.

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the order to show cause, repeated failures

to meaningfully meet and confer with defense counsel as required (see Doc. No. 3 at 2; 11 at 2), 

and failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ pending motion to 

dismiss, it appears that Plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute this action but rather has 

abandoned the litigation. Indeed, the docket in this case reflects that since Defendants’ removal of 

this action on July 23, 2024, Plaintiff has not filed any document whatsoever in this case.

In determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, courts consider the 

Case 2:24-cv-02000-DC-DMC Document 18 Filed 12/04/24 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

follow factors: (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).

In addition, the Local Rules of this court provide 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.” E.D. Cal. 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).

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

its docket, and the risk of prejudice to Defendants 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 this 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 plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and failure 

to comply with the court’s orders.

For the reasons set forth above,

1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to 

the October 31, 2024 order to show cause (Doc. No. 17), failure to prosecute this 

action, and failure to obey court orders, including the Local Rules;

2. Defendants’ pending motion (Doc. No. 11) is denied as having been rendered 

moot by this order; and

Case 2:24-cv-02000-DC-DMC Document 18 Filed 12/04/24 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-02000-DC-DMC Document 18 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3