govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-01315-1

1 3:25-cv-1315-RBM-MSB 
 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MAHMOOD AHSAN, 
Booking No. 24733372, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
OFFICE OF ASSIGNED COUNSEL, 
et al., 
Defendants. 

 
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 
ACTION FOR FAILING TO 
STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 
AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) 
AND FOR FAILING TO 
PROSECUTE IN 
COMPLIANCE WITH 
COURT ORDER 
 
Plaintiff Mahmood Ahsan, proceeding pro se while detained at the San Diego 
Central Jail (“SDCJ”), is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1, 2.) Plaintiff claimed Defendants violated his due 
process rights by interfering with his legal mail, denying his “legitimate legal requests,” 
and subjecting him to “inhumane” living conditions. (Doc. 1 at 2– 4.) On February 19, 
2026, however, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint sua sponte for failure to state a 
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). (Doc. 3.) 
The Court’s February 19, 2026 Order explained Plaintiff’s pleading deficiencies and 
gave him until March 9, 2026 to file an Amended Complaint. (Id. at 5–9.) The Order also 
Case 3:25-cv-01315-RBM-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3
 
 2 3:25-cv-1315-RBM-MSB 
 
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 
informed Plaintiff that if he failed to timely amend, the Court would enter a final judgment 
of dismissal based on his failure to state a claim and his failure to prosecute in compliance 
with the C ourt’s Order requiring amendment . (Id . at 10 (“If a plaintiff does not take 
advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal 
of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”) (quoting Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 
1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005)).) 
More than three months have passed since Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due, 
but he has neither filed an Amended Complaint nor sought an extension of time in which 
to do so. This Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or 
failure to comply with a court order. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 
1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to 
prosecute or comply with the federal rules or court order). “The failur e of the plaintiff 
eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum –either by amending the complaint or by 
indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 
41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 
“In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to 
comply with a court order , the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants /respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic 
alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. ” 
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639 , 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 
F.2d 1258, 1260‒61 (9th Cir. 1992)). Because the Court has informed Plaintiff of his need 
to timely amend but he has failed to do so, factors one, two, and four weigh in favor of 
dismissal. See Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he 
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”); 
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (“The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether 
the delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the public interest.”); 
Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (a court is not required 
Case 3:25-cv-01315-RBM-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3
 
 3 3:25-cv-1315-RBM-MSB 
 
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 
to exhaust all alternatives prior to dismissal). Factor five also does not weigh against 
dismissal. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 
(9th Cir. 2006) (the public policy favoring disposition on the merits does not weigh against 
dismissal where plaintiff’s “conduct impedes progress in that direction.”) Finally, because 
Plaintiff has failed to file a pleading that survives initial screening, no party has yet to 
appear. Therefore, only factor three fails to support dismissal. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 
at 642 (where defendants have not appeared, “[w]e have previously recognized that 
pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.”). 
Taken all together, the Court finds the weight of these factors favors dismissal. 
Therefore, entry of a final judgment is appropriate. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 
138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (“We may affirm a dismissal where at least four factors 
support dismissal, or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.”) (internal 
citation omitted) (quoting Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263). 
CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
 For the reasons set forth above , the Court DISMISSES this civil action without 
prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and for failure to amend as 
required by the Court’s February 19, 2026 Order. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith and 
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 17, 2026 
 
 
Case 3:25-cv-01315-RBM-MSB Document 4 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight