Hoang Minh Le v. Patricia McRae ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOANG MINH LE, an individual, No. 22-55419
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
5:22-cv-00209-JGB-KK
v. Central District of California,
Riverside
PATRICIA A. MCRAE, an individual,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Hoang Minh Le appeals the dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act
and California Unruh Act claims for failure to prosecute. Le argues that the district
court abused its discretion when it dismissed the lawsuit sua sponte after he failed to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
timely file a case statement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm the district court’s dismissal of Le’s claims.
We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute for abuse of
discretion, meaning that we will not reverse absent “a definite and firm conviction
that the [district court] committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it
reached.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640–41 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)).
We consider five factors when assessing a district court’s dismissal for failure
to prosecute: “(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 defendants; (4) the
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of
less drastic sanctions.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th
Cir. 1986). We may affirm a district court’s dismissal where at least four of these
five factors weigh in favor of dismissal, or at least three factors strongly weigh in
favor of dismissal. Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011).
Here, three factors strongly weigh in favor of dismissal. The public interest
in expeditious resolution of litigation always supports dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291
F.3d at 642. The district court’s need to manage its docket also favors dismissal, as
the district court “is in the best position to determine whether the delay in a particular
case interferes with docket management and the public interest.” Id.; see In re
2
Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, because Le did not present any non-frivolous excuse for his delay in filing
the case statement, we presume prejudice from his failure to prosecute this case. See
Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 400–01 (9th Cir. 1998).
While the district court’s failure to consider alternatives and the public policy
favoring resolution of cases on their merits may weigh against dismissal, we lack “a
definite and firm conviction” that the district court erred in dismissing Le’s claims
because the three remaining factors strongly support dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291
F.3d at 640 (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.3d at 1260). The district court thus did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing Le’s claims.
AFFIRMED.
3