Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05477/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05477-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Docket No. 25; Response due February 23, 2007.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN ARCHIBALD,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Defendant. /

No. C06-05477 MJJ

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

The Court hereby DISMISSES this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiff has failed to appear in Court on numerous occasions. 

A plaintiff has a general duty to prosecute his case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v.

Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir.1978). In determining whether to dismiss

an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to weigh several factors: “(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.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

In the instant case, parties were required to appear for a status conference on February 13,

2007. Plaintiff failed to appear. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requesting Plaintiff to

supply reasons why Plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.1

 The Court

Case 3:06-cv-05477-MJJ Document 26 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Docket No. 24.

2

also scheduled a further status conference set for February 27, 2007.2 Plaintiff failed to appear at the

second status conference on February 27, 2007. Additionally, Plaintiff did not provide a response to

the Order to Show Cause stating why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

In applying the factors, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving

this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as this case

because Plaintiff has failed to appear in Court without explanation. Further, prejudice to Defendants

and the public policy favoring dismissal of cases on the merits also weigh in favor of dismissal. 

Thus, Plaintiff's failure to appear justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b). Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to respond to

this Court’s Order to Show Cause. The clerk of the court is instructed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05477-MJJ Document 26 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 2