Castrence v. Doe et al
Filing
15
ORDER DISMISSING Action for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/8/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
(PC) Castrence v. Doe et al
Doc. 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
REDENTOR C. CASTRENCE,
1:12-cv-02075-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
13
v.
(ECF No. 14)
14
15
JOHN DOE, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
/
18
Plaintiff Redentor C. Castrence (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding
19
pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.)
21
On July 8, 2013, the Court issued an ordered Plaintiff to show cause by July 22,
22
2013 why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 14.) July
23
22, 2013, has passed without Plaintiff complying with or otherwise responding to the
24
Court’s order.
25
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
26
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
27
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
28
Dockets.Justia.com
1
inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
2
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.
3
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
4
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,
5
or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th
6
Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
7
1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
8
amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)
9
(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court
10
apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
11
(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
12
1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local
13
rules).
14
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
15
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors:
16
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to
17
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring
18
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
19
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
20
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
21
In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously
22
resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of
23
dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of
24
dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay
25
in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The
26
fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly
27
28
-2-
1
outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s
2
warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies
3
the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;
4
Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly
5
stated: “Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 14.)
6
Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance
7
with the Court’s Order.
Accordingly this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on
8
9
Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s July 8, 2013, order (ECF No. 14).
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
ci4d6
August 8, 2013
/s/
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-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?