Moreno v. Perkins Will, Inc.

Background

Rigoberto Jose Moreno, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action on November 12, 2019. The court related it to an earlier case that had already been dismissed and closed. On February 20, 2020, the court dismissed this action because Moreno had not served the defendants within 90 days after filing the complaint. The court then ordered Moreno to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The Clerk’s Office had asked Moreno to provide the defendants’ addresses so that the U.S. Marshals could serve them. Moreno did not respond to that request, and the Marshals therefore did not serve the defendants. Moreno filed no response in this case to the order to show cause. He did file several documents in the earlier, closed case, but the court found that those filings did not meaningfully address his failure to prosecute this action. The court also found that the filings did not present a specific request for relief that it could identify.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied five factors used when deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to follow a court order: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, possible prejudice to defendants, whether less severe alternatives were available, and the public policy favoring decisions on the merits.

The court found that Moreno had not diligently pursued the case for more than four months and that the case had used court resources. Although no defendants had been served and therefore no defendant had been required to respond, the court found that Moreno had not provided a meaningful explanation for his delay or for failing to provide the requested addresses. The court also concluded that it had already tried a less severe alternative by first dismissing the case without prejudice and then giving Moreno an opportunity to explain why dismissal with prejudice should not follow.

The court stated that it was not deciding the case on the merits. It nevertheless reviewed the complaint and could not identify a viable legal claim or determine whether the court would have jurisdiction if such a claim existed. For that reason, the factor favoring decisions on the merits did not weigh against dismissal in this case.

Disposition

After weighing all five factors, the court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. It denied Moreno’s various requests for relief to the extent that the cited filings constituted requests for relief. It dismissed Case No. 19-cv-07443-EMC for failure to prosecute, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the electronic filing portal closed for both of Moreno’s cases. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.