Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02708/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02708-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patricia A. Frantom
Plaintiff
Ryan Tongol
Defendant

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

PATRICIA A. FRANTOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN TONGOL,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02708-JSC 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Patricia A. Frantom (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action against Defendant Ryan Tongol (“Defendant”). On February 6, 2015, after 

Plaintiff had failed to appear at a February 5, 2015 Case Management Conference (“CMC”), the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to appear at a CMC on February 26, 2015 and show cause why this case 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 21.) On that same date the Court 

received a motion from Plaintiff to continue the February 5, 2015 conference until the defendant 

had been served. (Dkt. No. 22.) The motion was dated February 3, 2015, but because it had been 

mailed it was not received by the Court until after the February 5, 2015 conference date. The 

Court then denied Plaintiff’s motion to continue the February 5, 2015 CMC and once again 

ordered Plaintiff to appear on February 26, 2015. (Dkt. No. 23.) In both orders, the Court warned 

Plaintiff that her failure to appear at the February 26 CMC could result in dismissal for failure to 

prosecute. (See Dkt. Nos. 21, 23.) Plaintiff failed to appear at the February 26, 2015 CMC or to 

otherwise respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court may dismiss an action for 

failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. 

U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that a court may sua sponte

Case 3:14-cv-02708-JSC Document 25 Filed 02/27/15 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

dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b)). “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 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic 

alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. 

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

Here, the Pagtalunan factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, “[t]he public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). This is especially true where, as here, Plaintiff has impeded the Court’s 

ability to move this case forward by failing to appear and failing to respond to the Court’s Order to 

Show Cause.

The second factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket, also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket 

without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.”). The Court cannot manage its 

docket if it maintains cases where, as here, Plaintiff repeatedly disregards Court orders.

Third, there is no risk of prejudice to defendants here, given that Defendant was never even 

served in this matter. This factor also relates to “the plaintiff’s reason for defaulting.” 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. Plaintiff has offered no explanation for her repeated failure to 

appear or her failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, which weighs strongly in 

favor of dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92.

Fourth, the Court has already considered less drastic alternatives to dismissal by giving 

Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed and warning her 

that failure to appear may result in dismissal. (See Dkt. No. 23.) Thus, this factor also weighs in 

favor of dismissal. See Ferdick v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2s 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A district 

court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy 

the ‘consideration of [less drastic sanctions] requirement.”). 

The last factor, which favors disposition on the merits, by definition weighs against 

dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643 (“Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. 

Case 3:14-cv-02708-JSC Document 25 Filed 02/27/15 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

Thus, this factor weighs against dismissal.”).

Four of the five relevant factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissing this action in its 

entirety, so dismissal is appropriate. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 43 (affirming dismissal where three 

factors favored dismissal, while two factors weighed against dismissal).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending 

motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2015

______________________________________

Jacqueline Scott Corley

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02708-JSC Document 25 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 3