Santos C. Maldonado v. Youngblood et al
Filing
17
ORDER DISMISSING the Case for Failure to Prosecute 16 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/8/13. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SANTOS C. MALDONADO,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
DONNIE YOUNGBLOOD, et. al,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:12-cv-01157 – JLT (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE
(Doc. 16).
16
17
Plaintiff Santos C. Maldonado (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to proceed before
19
the Magistrate Judge on August 23, 2012. (Doc. 5). On March 19, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff a
20
final 21 day extension of time to file his first amended complaint. (Doc. 14). On April 19, 2013, the
21
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed for his failure to
22
comply with the March 19, 2013, order, because Plaintiff had not filed his first amended complaint.
23
(Doc. 16). Plaintiff was granted 14 days to respond to the April 19, 2013, order, but again failed to
24
comply with the Court’s order. Id.
25
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the court must consider
26
several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
27
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition
28
of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779
1
1
F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). The public’s interest in
2
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of
3
dismissal, as this case has been pending since July 16, 2012. (Doc. 1). This case cannot be held
4
abeyance indefinitely based on Plaintiff’s failure to file his first amended complaint.
5
The risk of prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of
6
injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air
7
West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Similarly, the factors in favor of dismissal discussed above
8
greatly outweigh the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. Finally, no lesser
9
sanction is feasible given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s
10
continuous disregard for the Court’s mandates.
11
prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Therefore, the matter is DISMISSED without
ORDER
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
14
1. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute; and
15
2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this matter.
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
Dated:
May 8, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
9j7khijed
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?