MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
On May 20, 2016, Isaias Miguel Mendoza ("plaintiff"), who is currently at liberty, is proceeding without a lawyer (i.e., "pro se"), and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed what the Court construed to be a Complaint ("Original Complaint") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against Los Angeles County ("County") for alleged federal civil rights and state law violations related to plaintiff's detention at the Los Angeles County Jail. (Original Complaint at 1-6). Plaintiff essentially alleged that County personnel improperly notified federal immigration authorities of his assumed immigration status and improperly retained him in custody at the Los Angeles County jail after the issuance of a release order and without an immigration hold in order to permit immigration authorities to determine whether he was subject to removal from the United States.
On January 3, 2017, this Court screened the Original Complaint, notified plaintiff of multiple deficiencies therein, and dismissed the Original Complaint with leave to amend ("Dismissal Order"). (Docket No. 15). The Court granted plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days, i.e., by January 17, 2017, to the extent plaintiff was able to cure the pleading defects set forth in the Dismissal Order. (Docket No. 15 at 10). The Dismissal Order further directed plaintiff, in the event he elected not to proceed with this action, to file a Notice of Dismissal. (Docket No. 15 at 11). The Dismissal Order also provided the following warning:
(Docket No. 15 at 11) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff has not filed a First Amended Complaint or a Notice of Dismissal and has not requested an extension of time to do so.
Based upon the record and the applicable law, and as further discussed below, the Court dismisses this action due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, his failure to comply with the Dismissal Order, and his failure diligently to prosecute.
First, as explained in detail in the Dismissal Order, the Original Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Dismissal Order explained in detail what plaintiff needed to do to cure the deficiencies in his pleading, granted plaintiff ample leave to file an amended complaint to the extent he was able to cure the multiple pleading deficiencies identified, and warned plaintiff that the action would be dismissed if he failed timely to file such an amendment. Since plaintiff did not file an amended complaint despite having been given an opportunity to do so, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff is simply unable or unwilling to draft a complaint that states viable claims for relief.
Second, dismissal is appropriate based upon plaintiff's failure to comply with the Dismissal Order and the failure diligently to prosecute. It is well-established that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and/or unreasonably failed to prosecute.
In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors, namely (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed and that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly.