Dr. Mickey Socrates Ferdynand v. Target Corporation ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DR. MICKEY SOCRATES Case No. 21-cv-00203-BAS-MSB FERDYNAND®, 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 TARGET CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff Dr. Mickey Socrates Ferdynand® filed this action on February 3, 2021, 22 against Target Corporation and the Department of Homeland Security. (Compl., ECF 23 No. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor 24 moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court’s mail sent to Plaintiff’s address 25 on file returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 4–5.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to (1) file 26 a correct address with the Court and (2) show cause as to why this action should not be 27 dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee by April 21, 2021. (Order, ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff 28 has not complied with the Court’s Order. 1 “District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, ‘[i]n the 2 exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . 3 dismissal of a case.’” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting 4 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); accord Link v. 5 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (holding that courts are vested with an inherent 6 power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition 7 of cases”). This inherent power exists independently of a district court’s authority to 8 dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Link, 370 U.S. at 630–32. 9 “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh penalty and, therefore, it should only be 10 imposed in extreme circumstances.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. 11 The circumstances in which a court may exercise its inherent power to dismiss an 12 action include where a plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case, failed to comply with a 13 court order, or engaged in judge shopping. Link, 370 U.S. at 630; Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 14 191 F.3d 983, 989–90 (9th Cir. 1999); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 15 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining whether to exercise this power, “the district court must 16 weigh five factors including (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 17 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 18 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 19 drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (quoting Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424, 20 and Thompson, 782 F.2d 829 at 831) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although it is 21 preferred, the district court is not required to “make explicit findings in order to show that 22 it has considered these factors.” Ferdik, 963 F.3d at 1261. 23 Here, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case. He has not complied with the Court’s 24 order to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed. Further, having weighed 25 the appropriate factors, the Court concludes that dismissing this case is warranted. See 26 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61. 27 // 28 // | Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 || DATED: April 22, 2021 Ypilag (Lyohaa é 5 United States District Judge 6 7 g 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~2L