Rodriguez v. Unknown Party

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Rafaela Vega Rodriguez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Party,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-01783-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed September 17, 2025.
(Doc. 8.) Almost two months ago, this Court ordered Plaintiff Rafaela Vega Rodriguez to
respond to the motion after she missed the deadline under the Local Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Doc. 10.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response. The Court now rules.
I.
In July 2024, Plaintiff applied for U nonimmigrant status—a temporary status for
victims of certain crimes who aid in the investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
(Doc. 1 ¶ 16.) On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court to compel the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her petition
and decide on her pending work authorization application within 14 days. (Id. ¶ 108.) Her
complaint alleges a claim of unlawful withholding or unreasonable delay under the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 29-105.)
Defendant Joseph Edlow, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
Case 2:25-cv-01783-MTL Document 11 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
claim. (Doc. 8.) Because Plaintiff failed to file a timely response, on November 7, 2025,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond or risk summary adjudication of the motion.
(Doc. 10.) No response has been filed.
II.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides:
[I]f the unrepresented party or counsel does not serve and file
the required answering memoranda, or if the unrepresented
party or counsel fails to appear at the time and place assigned
for oral argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a
consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court
may dispose of the motion summarily.
And “[a] plaintiff’s improper or invalid response to a motion to dismiss can be grounds for
granting the motion to dismiss.” Garcia v. Glendale Police Dep’t, No. CV
11-02260-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 922909, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 10, 2014) (citation omitted).
When a party fails to comply with a court order or local rule, the Court has inherent
authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss the action. Link v. Wabash
Ry., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). The Court must weigh the following factors before
dismissal: “(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.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). “The first two of
these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts against
a default or dismissal sanction. Thus[,] the key factors are prejudice and availability of
lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).
III.
The first and second factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff filed her complaint on May
27, 2025—over seven months ago—and this case has yet to leave the pleading stage.
(Doc. 1.) Further, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the merits of Defendant’s
motion, granting her more time than allotted under the Local Rules, to no avail. (Doc. 10.)
The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage
Case 2:25-cv-01783-MTL Document 11 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
its docket counsel in favor of dismissal. See Woods v. City of Scottsdale, No. CV
11-02488-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 5446528, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2013) (finding the first
two Henderson factors support dismissal when the plaintiff failed to respond even after the
Court granted him “considerable latitude” to file late).
The third factor—“the risk of prejudice to the defendants,” Henderson, 779 F.2d
at 1423—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s pleadings, and Plaintiff failed to file a timely response despite the Court’s
urging. Forcing Defendant to incur unnecessary expenses and defend a lawsuit that Plaintiff
has failed to advance would be prejudicial. See Hoover v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-18-
03314-PHX-JAT, 2020 WL 2084583, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2020) (explaining that the
third Henderson factor supports dismissal if the court were to require the defendant to press
on with litigation “in the face of [] uncertain participation from its opponent”), aff’d,
No. 20-16088, 2021 WL 5276016 (9th Cir. Nov. 12, 2021).
The fourth factor generally weighs against dismissal given the strong policy
preference for resolving cases on their merits. A dismissal without prejudice, however,
would not offend public policy because Plaintiff could pursue adjudication of the merits of
her claims at a later date. See Garcia, 2014 WL 922909, at *2 (recognizing that a dismissal
without prejudice means the fourth Henderson factor “neither favors nor disfavors
dismissal”).
Finally, the “availability of other alternatives” factor supports dismissal where the
Court gives the plaintiff an additional opportunity to comply with the rules and warns about
the consequences of noncompliance, as happened here. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that the court properly considered less drastic
alternatives when it gave the plaintiff an additional thirty days to cure his complaint).
Further, dismissing the case without prejudice means that Plaintiff can refile a complaint
asserting the same claims. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497,
505-06 (2001). This is a less drastic sanction than a dismissal with prejudice and therefore
supports dismissal of this action.
Case 2:25-cv-01783-MTL Document 11 Filed 12/30/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On balance, the Henderson factors tilt in favor of dismissing this action. Therefore,
the Court will grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss the action without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 8). Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of
dismissal without prejudice and close this case.
Dated this 30th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01783-MTL Document 11 Filed 12/30/25 Page 4 of 4