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)

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