UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAURA BENTON, Case No. 25-cv-08787-RFL
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
Vv. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Laura Benton filed this action on October 14, 2025. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant
moved to dismiss the complaint on April 20, 2026. (Dkt. No. 17.) Benton failed to timely
oppose the Motion to Dismiss, and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, advising Benton
that failure to respond by May 26, 2026 may result in dismissal of her complaint without further
notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 24.) That date has now passed,
and Benton has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss or responded to the Order to
Show Cause. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to
prosecute for the reasons explained in Montgomery v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 24-cv-00557-RFL,
2024 WL 2853967, at *1—2 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2024) (applying the five factors listed in
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)). Furthermore, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2026 ZA Z
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.