Albert Ledesma v. Swaye

Filing 11

ORDER Dismissing Action for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/22/13. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERT LEDESMA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01037 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

DOCTOR SWAY,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Albert Ledesma (“Plaintiff”) is a former prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 3, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint
for failure to state a claim with leave to amend, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
within thirty days. After failing to file an amended complaint, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause why the action should not be dismissed on May 30, 2013. Plaintiff was ordered to file a
response within fourteen days. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise
contacted the Court.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to
control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where
appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

failure to lack of prosecution and 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 risk

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action

18

has been pending since June 26, 2012, and there is no operative complaint. The third factor, risk of

19

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from

20

the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522,

21

524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits --

22

is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s

23

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

24

“consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;

25

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated: “Failure to timely respond or

26

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

27

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

28

noncompliance with the Court’s order.
2

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

2

1.

3

This action is DISMISSED for failure to obey the Court’s April 3, 2013 Order and for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and

4

2.

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

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated:

/s/ Dennis L. Beck

July 22, 2013

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D C_Si gnat ue EN :
EA
r- D

3b142a

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