Clifford C. Loyer v. Unknown, 2:23-cv-02241

Plaintiff Clifford Chaun Loyer, a California pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on March 24, 2023.
The Court dismissed Loyer’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend and gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint (May 22, 2023 order) with a warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The May 22, 2023 order was returned undelivered and then re-sent to Loyer’s current address on July 6, 2023; Loyer did not file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court.
The Court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the nine-factor/ five-factor dismissal framework from the Ninth Circuit (Pagtalunan/Yourish analysis) to determine whether dismissal was appropriate.
The Court found four factors weighed in favor of dismissal (public interest in expeditious resolution; court’s docket management; risk of prejudice; lack of lesser alternatives) and one factor was neutral (public policy favoring disposition on the merits).
Conclusion: The action was dismissed without prejudice on November 15, 2023 for failure to prosecute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the action should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute	Loyer did not file an amended complaint or respond to the Court’s order (no active argument presented)	No active defense position; dismissal considered sua sponte due to Loyer’s inaction	Case dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute after applying the Pagtalunan/Yourish factors (four favor dismissal, one neutral)

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (district courts may dismiss for failure to comply with orders or prosecute)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (courts have authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) (five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) (application of factors and standard for dismissal)
Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (failure to prosecute alone can justify dismissal)
In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson on dismissal without showing actual prejudice)
Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1984) (discussion of prejudice from delays)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (court need not exhaust lesser sanctions before dismissal)
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where court could not contact plaintiff)
Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1991) (party must move case toward timely disposition)