Tubach v. Chaudry et al

Filing 12

ORDER Dismissing Action, without Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 1/5/14. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Case No. 1:12-cv-01389-SMS (PC) 10 ISABEL TUBACH, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE v. Dr. Chaudry, et al., 14 Defendants. (Doc. 11) 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff Isabel Tubach (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and 19 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed the complaint in 20 21 this action on August 23, 2012. Doc. 1. In the complaint, Plaintiff appeared to allege that she 22 was being sexually abused and harassed, and denied necessary medical care in violation of the 23 Eighth Amendment, although she did not allege the violation of any specific constitutional right. 24 The complaint failed to state the dates of the occurrences of which she complained and alleged 25 26 numerous legal conclusions rather than detailed factual allegations. /// 27 28 /// 1 1 On October 23, 2013, to enable the Court to screen the complaint in compliance with 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit within thirty (30) days a 3 more definite statement of facts. Doc. 10. The order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply 4 might result in the action's being dismissed without further notice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 5 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 On December 5, 2013, after more than thirty days passed without any action by Plaintiff, 8 the Court ordered her to show cause within fifteen days why this action should not be dismissed, 9 warning her that this action would be dismissed if she failed to respond. Doc. 11. Although the 10 fifteen-day deadline has expired, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to either 11 of the Court's orders. 12 The First Informational Order also warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with a court 13 14 15 order is grounds for sanctions including dismissal of this action. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Doc. 5. 16 The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 17 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los 18 19 Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh A(1) the public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 20 21 court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 22 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.@ In 23 re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 24 2006), quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). These factors 25 guide a court in deciding how to proceed when a plaintiff fails to actively prosecute his or her 26 case. Id. 27 /// 28 2 1 2 3 Based on Plaintiff=s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the above orders, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action cannot proceed without Plaintiff=s cooperation and compliance with the orders at issue. 4 Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to 5 6 prosecute. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 12 January 5, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 13 icido34h 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?