Summary
The court dismissed the action without prejudice after the plaintiffs failed to comply with an order requiring them to submit completed in forma pauperis requests or pay the filing fee and to file an amended complaint addressing equitable tolling. Applying the factors governing dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court concluded that four of the five factors favored dismissal.
Holdings
- A district court may dismiss an action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, after considering the five dismissal factors: the public interest in expeditious resolution, the court's need to manage its docket, prejudice to defendants, the policy favoring disposition on the merits, and the availability of less drastic alternatives. Because four of the five factors favored dismissal, the action was dismissed without prejudice.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's order.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Agnew v. Moody, 330 F.2d 868, 871 (9th Cir. 1964)(applied)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962)(applied)
- Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)(applied)
- Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)(applied)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)(applied)
- In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994)(applied)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2006)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…