April 25, 2013
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, DEFENDANT(S).
Presently before the court is defendant Flagstar Bank, FSB's motion to dismiss filed on April 1, 2013. (Doc. # 2).*fn1 To date, pro se plaintiff Esther Hernandez has failed to file an opposition.*fn2
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), an opposing party's failure to file a timely response to any motion constitutes the party's consent to the granting of the motion and is proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). However, prior to dismissal, the district court is required to weigh several 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) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
The instant motion seeks dismissal of plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure complaint. Although the court must construe the pleadings liberally, "[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); see also, Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54 ("Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure."); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) ("[P]ro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record."). In light of plaintiff's failure to respond, and weighing the factors identified in Ghazali, the court finds dismissal appropriate.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Flagstar Bank, FSB's motion to dismiss (doc. # 2) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE