Bondurant v. Kannon

Filing 16

ORDER DISMISSING Action for Failure to Obey Court Order and Failure to State a Claim 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/11/13: The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TRAVIS BONDURANT,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
K. KANNON,

Case No. 1:11-cv-01725-DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
ECF No. 14

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff Travis Bondurant (“Plaintiff”) was a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and

17

in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 24, 2012, the Court

18

screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend

19

within thirty days. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 28, 2012, the Court issued

20

an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and

21

failure to state a claim. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff was provided fourteen days in which to respond. As

22

of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise complied.

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 all

25

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

26

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

27

appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)

28

(per curiam). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

6

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

7

comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for

8

failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

14

1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833

23

F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated: “Failure to timely

24

respond or otherwise show cause will result in dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court

25

order and failure to state a claim.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result

26

from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

27

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

28

1.

This action is DISMISSED for failure to obey the Court’s November 28, 2012 Order
2

1

and for failure to state a claim; and

2

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 11, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

DEAC_Signature-END:

8

3b142a

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3