Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02280/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02280-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANJON MARQUIS DOUGLAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SONY GROUP CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-2280 DJC SCR PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned for pretrial matters by Eastern District Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP). ECF Nos. 1 and 2. On April 19, 2024, Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes was 

unable to grant the pending IFP motion because plaintiff’s complaint was deficient. ECF No. 3 at 

1. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Barnes dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 

twenty-eight days of the date of the order. ECF No. 3 at 5. The order further cautioned that 

failure to comply with the order may result in the recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. 

Plaintiff did not file an amend complaint. 

On September 17, 2024, about four months after the deadline had passed, the court issued 

an order to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s orders, nor taken any actions to 

Case 2:23-cv-02280-DJC-SCR Document 6 Filed 10/16/24 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 

prosecute this case. 

In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 

considered “(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 alternatives.” Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Here consideration of the 

factors favors dismissal without prejudice because plaintiff has failed to comply and respond to 

the Court’s attempts to move the case forward and has not provided an excuse for the lack of 

compliance, attempts to use less drastic measures, such as issuing an order to show cause after the 

passage of time to file an amended complaint proved unsuccessful, and the case simply cannot 

move forward without plaintiff’s participation. 

Because deficiencies in the complaint have not been resolved, the court will deny the 

motion to proceed IFP. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting 

Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)) (“‘A district court may 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’”). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the IFP motion (ECF No. 2) be DENIED. 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of 

prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local 

Rule 110. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-02280-DJC-SCR Document 6 Filed 10/16/24 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 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 15, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-02280-DJC-SCR Document 6 Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 3