Guillen v. Colombana ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Erica Guillen, No. 2:19-cv-00655-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Ricardo Colombana and Mirella Colombana, 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend on October 10, 18 | 2019. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff was permitted 21 days to amend her complaint. No amended 19 | complaint has been filed. On April 12, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this 20 | action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, and plaintiff has not responded. 21 The court has considered (1) “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” 22 | (2) “the court’s need to manage its docket,” (3) “the risk of prejudice to the defendants,” (4) “the 23 | public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,” and (5) “the availability of less drastic 24 | sanctions.” Dahl vy. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996). With the 25 | exception of the fourth, these factors each favor dismissal. Plaintiff has not amended her 26 | complaint or responded to the order to show cause, and almost two years have passed since the 27 | court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. This action is therefore dismissed for lack of 28 | prosecution under Rule 41(b). The clerk’s office is directed to close the case. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: September 29, 2021. 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE