Thomas v. Mageua et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE For Failure to Obey Court Order and Failure to State Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/8/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6

WILLIAM H. THOMAS,

7

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01154-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND
FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM

MAGEUA, et al.,

10

(DOC. 8)
Defendants.
/

11
12

On May 27, 2011, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why this action

13

should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim, within

14

eighteen (18) days. The eighteen (18)-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not shown

15

cause or otherwise responded to the Court's order.

16

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

17

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and

18

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power

19

to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including,

20

where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th

21

Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

22

an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.

23

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

24

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

25

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

26

1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

27

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal

28

for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.
1

1

1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

2

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

3

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

4

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

5

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

6

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

7

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;

8

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

9

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

10

litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third

11

factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of

12

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air

13

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition

14

of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed

15

herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in

16

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

17

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated,

18

“Failure to show cause or otherwise respond will result in dismissal of this action for failure to

19

obey a court order and failure to state a claim.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that

20

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order.

21
22

On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a written consent to jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate
Judge.

23
24
25

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that this action be dismissed based on
plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of May 27, 2011, and for failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:
77e0d6

July 8, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2