Cameron v. Therrian et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LAWRENCE-JAY; HOUSE CAMERON,
Plaintiff,
v.
VALERIE THERRIAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:23-cv-00004-SLG-KFR
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant (“Plaintiff”), initiated
this action against Valerie Therrian, Maria-Patrice Bahr, Alice Brown, and Austin
Brown.1 On August 21, 2023, the Magistrate Judge screened the Complaint, found
it deficient, but granted Plaintiff leave to file either an amended complaint or a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by October 20, 2023.2 The Court’s order was
returned to the Court as undeliverable.3 To date, Plaintiff has not responded or
otherwise contacted the Court.
Rule 41(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal due to a
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. Further, if a plaintiff
1 Dockets 1-5.
2 Docket 8.
3 Docket 9.
Case 4:23-cv-00004-SLG-KFR Document 10 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 4:23-cv-00004-SLG-KFR, Cameron v. Therrian, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 3
fails to keep a current address on file with the Court, it may result in a dismissal of
the case without further notice to the plaintiff.4
Before dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with a court order or local
rule, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider five factors: (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) public policy favoring disposition of
cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.5 A court
is not required to “make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered
these factors.”6
Having considered these five factors, this case must be dismissed.
Dismissal without prejudice “minimizes prejudice to a defendant and preserves a
plaintiff’s ability to seek relief.”7 The Court finds no other lesser sanction to be
satisfactory or effective in this case.8 Therefore, this case is dismissed, without
4 See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (requiring a notice of change of address to be filed, as “[s]elf-
represented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party’s current address
and telephone number.”).
5 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (first citing Thompson v. Housing Auth. of L.A.,
782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); and then citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th
Cir. 1986)).
6 Id.
7 Alli v. City and County of San Francisco, 2022 WL 3099222 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (internal citations
omitted).
8 See, e.g., Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 (a district court need not exhaust every sanction short
of dismissal before finally dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful
alternatives) (internal citation omitted); Gleason v. World Sav. Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 3927799, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (finding dismissal under Rule 41(b) appropriate where the court
Case 4:23-cv-00004-SLG-KFR Document 10 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:23-cv-00004-SLG-KFR, Cameron v. Therrian, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 3
prejudice, for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute this
action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment.
DATED this 27th day of November, 2023 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
previously attempted the lesser sanction of issuing an order to show cause and giving the
plaintiff an additional opportunity to re-plead).
Case 4:23-cv-00004-SLG-KFR Document 10 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 3