Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00808/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00808-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT DERWIN AVERY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. ARMY RECRUITING, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-808-YGR 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Robert Derwin Avery proceeds pro se in this action against defendant U.S. Army 

Recruiting. On July 16, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 19.) 

Mr. Avery did not file any response papers pursuant to his obligations under this Court’s Local 

Rule 7-3(a) by his deadline of August 18, 2015. (See Dkt. No. 20.) The Court issued an Order on 

September 1, 2015 warning Mr. Avery that the Court was considering dismissing his lawsuit for 

“failure to prosecute” and directing him to file his response papers no later than September 11, 

2015. (Dkt. No. 26.) As of the date of this Order, Mr. Avery has not filed his response to 

defendant’s motion to dismiss, nor has he filed any other documents with the Court. 

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to 

prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); 

McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be 

ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. A district court should afford the 

litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 

128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, the Court warned Mr. Avery in its prior Order dated September 1, 2015 that it 

was considering dismissing his lawsuit due to his failure to prosecute this action. To date, Mr. 

Avery has not met his obligation to respond to defendant’s motion. Furthermore, it has been more 

Case 4:15-cv-00808-YGR Document 27 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

than four months since plaintiff has communicated with the Court. Accordingly, it is in the 

interests of justice and judicial efficiency to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 

This Order terminates Case Number 15-cv-808. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 1, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-00808-YGR Document 27 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2