Summary
The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute, failed to comply with court orders, and failed to state a claim. The recommendation applies the factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders, and advises the parties of the procedure and deadline for filing objections.
Holdings
- Dismissal without prejudice was warranted because plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with orders directing her to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal and to respond to the order to show cause.
- The action should also be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim for the reasons stated in the court's February 24, 2025 screening order.
Questions Presented
- Whether dismissal without prejudice was warranted because plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with orders requiring an amended complaint, notice of voluntary dismissal, or a response to the order to show cause.
- Whether the court's consideration of the relevant dismissal factors and prior warning satisfied the requirement that less drastic alternatives be considered.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…