Cho et al., vs. Six Unknown Names Agents, et al.

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/24/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHO, VARGAS, RENE, HESTER, JO, JAE JUNE PAK, 8 Plaintiff, 1:11-cv-2121-AWI-MJS (PC) ORDER DISMISSING OF PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION 9 v. (ECF No. 2) 10 SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, et al., CLERK SHALL CLOSE CASE 11 Defendants. 12 13 _______________________________/ 14 On December 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed what was construed as a civil rights Complaint 15 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 16 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. (Compl., ECF No. 17 1.) In addition to failing to set forth any intelligible claim for relief, the Complaint was unsigned. 18 On January 31, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiffs’ Complaint to be stricken from the record 19 for its lack of a signature and Plaintiffs to each, individually, file a signed complaint or a single 20 complaint signed by all Plaintiffs within thirty days from service of the Order. (ECF No. 2.) 21 Plaintiffs were informed that failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of the 22 action. (Id.) This deadline has passed without a response from Plaintiffs. 23 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 24 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 25 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 26 dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate 27 . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 28 -1- 1 may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 2 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 3 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 4 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment 5 of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 6 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 7 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); 8 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and 9 failure to comply with local rules). 10 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a Court 11 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 12 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 13 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 14 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 15 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 16 53. 17 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 18 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 19 factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 20 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air 21 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition 22 of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed 23 herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 24 dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 25 at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Order expressly stated: 26 “The failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action.” (Order, ECF No. 2.) 27 Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate warning that dismissal would result from their noncompliance with 28 the Court’s Order. -2- 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiffs’ action is DISMISSED; and 3 2. Clerk shall CLOSE the case. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 April 24, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 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?