Tubach v. Guzman et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, without Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 09/26/2013. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
ISABEL TUBACH,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00020-SMS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

12
(ECF No. 11s)

GUZMAN, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff Isabel Tubach (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

18
19
20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the
Complaint in this action on January 7, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to

21

allege that she is being sexually abused and harassed in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

22

though she does not identify any specific constitutional right that she feels was violated. In

23

addition, Plaintiff failed to state the dates of the occurrences of which she complains and merely

24

stated many conclusions rather than detailed factual allegations.

25
Thus, on July 8, 2013 and August 12, 2013, orders issued requiring Plaintiff to submit a
26
27
28

more definite statement of facts, within thirty (30) days, to enable the Court to screen the
///

1

1

Complaint in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) That same order indicated

2

that Plaintiff’s failure to comply as directed may result in the dismissal of this action under Rule

3

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without further notice. (Id.)

4
Since Plaintiff did not respond, on September 13, 2013, the Court ordered her to show
5
6

cause within twelve days why this action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was

7

warned that this action would be dismissed if she failed to respond. (Id.) The twelve-day

8

deadline has expired and Plaintiff did not comply with or otherwise responded to either of the

9

Court=s orders. Plaintiff was warned in the First Informational Order (ECF No. 4) that failure to

10
11

comply with a court order is grounds for sanctions up to and including dismissal of this action.
Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

12
13
14

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that
power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los

15

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action,

16

the Court must weigh A(1) the public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

17

court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

18

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.@ In

19
re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.
20
21

2006) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). These factors are

22

not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action but rather guide a court in

23

deciding what to do. Id. (citation omitted).

24
25
26

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
can proceed no further without Plaintiff=s cooperation and compliance with the orders at issue.

27
The action cannot simply remain idle and unprosecuted on the Court=s docket. Id.
28
2

1
2

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED, without prejudice, for
failure to prosecute.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

7

September 26, 2013

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9

DEAC_Signature-END:

b742a4h

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