Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02381/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02381-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Contra Costa County Social Services, General Assistance Programs
Defendant
Ernest Dugar, III
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST DUGAR, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES, GENERAL ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02381-JD 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Mr. Ernest Dugar III, who is litigating this action pro se, filed his complaint on May 22, 

2014. Dkt. No 1. On August 11, 2014, the Court dismissed Mr. Dugar’s complaint with leave to 

amend because, even construing the complaint liberally, the Court found that it did not allege 

diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 11. The Court gave Mr. Dugar 

until September 17, 2014 to amend his complaint to adequately allege federal subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. Mr. Dugar did not amend his complaint. The Court issued an Order to Show 

Cause why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute on December 

19, 2014. Dkt. No. 15. The Order to Show Cause required Mr. Duggar to respond by January 28, 

2015, and stated that his failure to respond could result in this case being dismissed with prejudice 

for failure to prosecute. Id. Mr. Dugar did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. Because no 

amended complaint has been filed, this case is dismissed with prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides the Court with authority to dismiss a case 

for failure to comply with any of its orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or 

failure to comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s 

Case 3:14-cv-02381-JD Document 16 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 

risk of prejudice to the defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and 

(5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” See Espinosa v. Washington 

Mut. Bank, No. C 10-04464 SBA, 2011 WL 334209, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011) (citing 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

These factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Mr. Dugar failed to file an amended complaint 

or respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. With respect to the first factor, “[t]he public’s 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish v. Cal. 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). For the second factor, the Court must be able to 

manage its docket “without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 

F.3d at 642; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (discussing that non-compliance with a court’s 

order diverts “valuable time that [the court] could have devoted to other major and serious 

criminal and civil cases on its docket.”). For the third factor, due to Mr. Dugar’s failure to respond 

to file an amended complaint or respond to this Court’s Order to Show Cause, he has offered no 

explanation for his failure. This weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. See Espinosa, 2011 WL 

334209, at *2. With respect to the fourth factor, the Court gave Mr. Dugar the opportunity to file 

an amended complaint and warned him that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to 

prosecute. See Dkt. No. 15. This is sufficient to satisfy the consideration of less drastic sanctions 

requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Although the fifth factor -- the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits -- might weigh against dismissal on its own, the cumulative 

weight of the other factors overrides it. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (finding district court did 

not abuse its discretion in dismissing case where three of the five factors weighed in favor of 

dismissal).

CONCLUSION

Because Mr. Dugar was notified that his failure to file an amended complaint would lead 

to dismissal of this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and he failed to file an amended 

Case 3:14-cv-02381-JD Document 16 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint within the time period allowed by the Court, the case is dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02381-JD Document 16 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3