Hernandez v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING Action For Failure To Obey Court Order (Doc. 2 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/12/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 ALEJANDRO VARGAS HERNANDEZ, CASE NO. 1:11-CV-01373-AWI-DLB PC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 6 v. 7 (DOC. 2) SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 / 10 Plaintiff Alejandro Vargas Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se 11 in this civil rights action. On August 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 12 issued an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint as unsigned. Plaintiff was ordered to submit a 13 signed complaint within ten days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in 14 dismissal of this action. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise 15 complied. 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 24 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an 25 order 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 1 1 for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 2 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 4 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 5 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 6 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 7 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 8 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 9 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 In the instant case, the court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 11 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. On July 7, 12 2011, Plaintiff was ordered to file a signed complaint, but failed to do so. The third factor, risk 13 of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises 14 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 15 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on 16 their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 17 a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 18 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 19 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order expressly stated: “Failure to 20 [file a signed complaint] in a timely manner will result in dismissal of this action.” Thus, 21 plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 22 Court’s order. 23 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to 24 obey a court order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: 0m8i78 October 12, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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?