Camarena v. Diep et al

Filing 31

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendant's 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/04/2012. Opposition due by 10/29/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
JESSE CAMARENA,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00025-GBC (PC)

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

DR. JOHN DIEP, et al.,
12

Doc. 29
Defendants.

13

/ RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS

14
15

On January 6, 2010, Jesee Camarena (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

16

forma pauperis, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On July 20, 2011, the Court

17

issued an order dismissing certain claims and defendants and finding a cognizable claim against

18

Defendant Diep (“Defendant”) for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical

19

need. Doc. 13.

20

On September 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to

21

prosecute. Doc. 29. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of

22

non-opposition as required by Local Rule 230(l).

23

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,

24

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles

25

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of

26

prosecution, the district court is required to consider several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in

27

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

28

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
Page 1 of 2

1

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)

2

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court

3

in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action.

4

In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.

5

2006).

6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to file an opposition or statement

7

of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute within

8

twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order. Failure to timely comply or otherwise

9

respond will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute..

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
7j8cce

October 4, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2