Lange v. Beer et al

Filing 19

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To Obey A Court Order, Response Due In Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/3/2010. Show Cause Response due by 9/7/2010.(Scrivner, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Lange v. Beer et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 18 to 28 U.S.C. 636 (c)(1). 19 On June 17, 2010, an order was entered, directing plaintiff to complete and submit to the 20 Court forms for service of process. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the 21 order could result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff has not returned the forms to the Court, 22 nor has Plaintiff filed any other response to the order of June 17, 2010. 23 Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 24 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and 25 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the inherent power 26 to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, 27 28 where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant MIGUEL JOSEPH LANGE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SGT. BEER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:07 cv 01811 GSA (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider 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 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Here, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, within thirty 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff's failure to respond will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 110. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij August 3, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?