Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04031/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04031-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

E-filed 2/21/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO M. HEREDIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANA BOYD,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-04031-HRL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 24

Pro se plaintiff Ernesto Heredia (“Heredia”) filed a complaint in this case on July 18, 2016. 

Dkt. No. 1. Since that date, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Heredia failed to oppose. 

Dkt. No. 9. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to defendant Ana Boyd and 

with leave to amend as to defendant West Valley Staffing Group (“WVSG”). Dkt. No. 21. 

Heredia failed to file a First Amended Complaint, the deadline for which has passed. After

Heredia also failed to file a Case Management Statement, Dkt. No. 22, the court issued an order to 

show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute on February 9, 2017. 

Dkt. No. 23. The show cause order set a hearing date of February 21, 2017, and stated, in bold 

text, “[i]f plaintiff fails to appear, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Id. Heredia

failed to appear at the show cause hearing. Dkt. No. 24. All parties have consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 5, 16.

Having considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), the court has determined that notwithstanding the public policy 

favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the court's need to manage its docket and the 

public interest in the expeditious resolution of the litigation require dismissal of this action. In 

view of plaintiff's lack of response to this court's prior order(s), the court finds there is no 

Case 5:16-cv-04031-HRL Document 25 Filed 02/21/17 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 California

appropriate less drastic sanction. Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. The Clerk is instructed to close the file in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/21/2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04031-HRL Document 25 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 2