GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
John Michael Crim ("Plaintiff") is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil action. This case was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Kern County Superior Court on June 12, 2012 (Case #S-1500-CV-276883-WDP). (ECF No. 2 at 8-30.) On August 16, 2012, defendants Management & Training Corp., Adler, Stewart, Mann, Patrick, Logan, McBride, and Sy removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (federal question). (ECF No. 1.) The case was subsequently dismissed on November 26, 2014, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 29.) On December 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which was forwarded to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and opened as appeal case number 14-17482. (ECF Nos. 31-33.)
On April 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of this case and remanded it to this court and on May 4, 2017, the mandate was entered. (ECF Nos. 37, 38.) The Ninth Circuit directed the district court to consider Plaintiff's complaint independently of his motion for library access. Accordingly, the court reopened this case for further proceedings.
On May 9, 2017, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to respond in writing within ten days, either (1) indicating that he intends to litigate this case, or (2) filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 97.) More than six weeks have passed, and Plaintiff has not submitted any response to the court's order.
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth in its 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."
"`The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,'"
Turning to the risk of prejudice, "pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal."
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given that Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this action, the court finds monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh against dismissal.
Accordingly, the court
IT IS SO ORDERED.