Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-11564 RGK (Ex) Date: February 6, 2026

Title Jiezhong Li v. Google LLC

Present: The Honorable: R. Gary Klausner, United States District Judge

Joseph Remigio N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

N/A N/A

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice

On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Request to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP Request”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff alleged that he had experienced “persistent,

unlawful intrusions into his Google accounts.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He raised claims under the Stored

Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act. (Id. at 5-6.)

On December 18, 2025, the Court postponed a ruling on the IFP Request and granted

Plaintiff, if he wished to proceed, an opportunity to provide more information in 30 days. (ECF No.

9.) First, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended IFP Request or pay the filing fee. (Id.)

Second, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. (Id.)

As of this date, more than 30 days later, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order.

Instead, Plaintiff filed only a “Formal Statement” in which he notified the Court of his “refusal to

engage in any private contact, settlement offer, or coercive communication.” (ECF No. 10.) The

Formal Statement does not include an Amended IFP request or an Amended Complaint. (Id.)

A district court has the inherent power under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to

dismiss an action for failure to comply with the court’s order. Agnew v. Moody, 330 F.2d 868, 871

(9th Cir. 1964) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962)). “[I]n order for a court to

dismiss a case as a sanction, the district court 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) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-11564 RGK (Ex) Date: February 6, 2026

Title Jiezhong Li v. Google LLC

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986

(9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish, 191

F.3d at 990 (“[T]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors

dismissal.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“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. Arguably, [the] petition has consumed some of the court’s time that could have

been devoted to other cases on the docket.”); In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994)

(recognizing that the law presumes injury to the defendants from unreasonable delay); In re

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006)

(“Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration

of alternatives’ requirement.”). Although the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of

the case on the merits, weighs against dismissal, “this factor lends little support to a party whose

responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes

progress in that direction.” Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1228.

In sum, four of the five factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Accordingly, this action is

dismissed without prejudice.

It is so ordered.

:

Initials of Preparer JRE/js/gz