Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAHMOOD AHSAN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-1315-RBM-MSB Booking No. 24733372, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILING TO vs. STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 14 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) OFFICE OF ASSIGNED COUNSEL, 15 AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) et al., AND FOR FAILING TO 16 Defendants. PROSECUTE IN 17 COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER 18 19 20 Plaintiff Mahmood Ahsan, proceeding pro se while detained at the San Diego 21 Central Jail (“SDCJ”), is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1, 2.) Plaintiff claimed Defendants violated his due 23 process rights by interfering with his legal mail, denying his “legitimate legal requests,” 24 and subjecting him to “inhumane” living conditions. (Doc. 1 at 2–4.) On February 19, 25 2026, however, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint sua sponte for failure to state a 26 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). (Doc. 3.) 27 The Court’s February 19, 2026 Order explained Plaintiff’s pleading deficiencies and 28 gave him until March 9, 2026 to file an Amended Complaint. (Id. at 5–9.) The Order also 1 informed Plaintiff that if he failed to timely amend, the Court would enter a final judgment 2 of dismissal based on his failure to state a claim and his failure to prosecute in compliance 3 with the Court’s Order requiring amendment. (Id. at 10 (“If a plaintiff does not take 4 advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal 5 of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”) (quoting Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 6 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005)).) 7 More than three months have passed since Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due, 8 but he has neither filed an Amended Complaint nor sought an extension of time in which 9 to do so. This Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or 10 failure to comply with a court order. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 11 1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to 12 prosecute or comply with the federal rules or court order). “The failure of the plaintiff 13 eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by 14 indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 15 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 “In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to 17 comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s 18 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 19 (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic 20 alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” 21 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 22 F.2d 1258, 1260‒61 (9th Cir. 1992)). Because the Court has informed Plaintiff of his need 23 to timely amend but he has failed to do so, factors one, two, and four weigh in favor of 24 dismissal. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he 25 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”); 26 Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether 27 the delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the public interest.”); 28 Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (a court is not required 1 ||to exhaust all alternatives prior to dismissal). Factor five also does not weigh against 2 || dismissal. See Jn re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 3 || (9th Cir. 2006) (the public policy favoring disposition on the merits does not weigh against 4 || dismissal where plaintiff's “conduct impedes progress in that direction.) Finally, because 5 || Plaintiff has failed to file a pleading that survives initial screening, no party has yet to 6 ||appear. Therefore, only factor three fails to support dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 7 642 (where defendants have not appeared, “[w]e have previously recognized that 8 || pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.’’). 9 Taken all together, the Court finds the weight of these factors favors dismissal. 10 || Therefore, entry of a final judgment is appropriate. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 11 |} 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We may affirm a dismissal where at least four factors 12 support dismissal, or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.’’) (internal 13 citation omitted) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). 14 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this civil action without 16 || prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 17 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(~ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and for failure to amend as 18 required by the Court’s February 19, 2026 Order. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 19 || U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith and 20 || DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: June 17, 2026 Fe Le ; ? L □ 23 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28