UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 20, 2012
TITLE: DIAN HILL
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
PRESENT: HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Rita Sanchez None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On October 29, 2012, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Action (the "Motion") filed by Defendant Michael Astrue. (Docket No. 18). Plaintiff Dian Hill had not filed any opposition. (Id.)
The Court also ordered Hill to show cause, in writing, by no later than November 12, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) From the Motion, it appeared that Hill's claims for relief were barred as a matter of law. (Id.) In addition, the Court warned that "[f]ailure of Hill to respond to the Order to Show Cause by the above date will result in the Court's dismissing this action with prejudice." (Id.)
Hill to date has not filed a written response or otherwise responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause.
The Court finds that Hill's failure to oppose the Motion and to file a written response to the Order to Show Cause constitutes failure to prosecute and to comply with court rules and orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) ("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."); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989-92 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining factors supporting dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute).
Because Hill failed to follow the Court's directives and rules aimed at the timely prosecution of her case, the Court concludes that the Pagtalunan factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action with prejudice. Hill's failure to engage in the litigation she initiated hampers expeditious resolution of litigation and inhibits the Court's ability to manage its docket. Hill has had various opportunities to prosecute this case such that a dismissal with prejudice does not unfairly impact her rights. See Local Rule 41-1.
Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and to comply with court rules and orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.