Tubach v. Brown et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/10/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Case No. 1:13-cv-00311-SMS (PC)
10

ISABEL TUBACH,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
JERRY BROWN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

(Doc. 8)

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 March 5, 2013. Doc. 1.

22

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Governor Brown had authorized the other

23

Defendants' sexual abuse and harassment of Defendant in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

24

The complaint failed to state specific factual details and the dates of the occurrences of which

25
26

Plaintiff complained. The majority of the allegations were legal conclusions rather than detailed
factual allegations.

27
28

///

1

1
2
3

On March 19, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit within thirty (30) days a more
definite statement of facts so that the Court could screen the complaint in compliance with 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Doc. 7. The order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply as directed might

4
result in the dismissal of this action under F.R.Civ.P. 41(b) without further notice. Nonetheless,
5
6
7

Plaintiff did not provide a more definite statement of facts, request an extension of time to
comply, nor respond to the Court's order in any other way.
On April 24, 2014, after more than thirty days had passed, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

8
9
10
11

show cause within fifteen days why this action should not be dismissed, warning her that this
action would be dismissed if she failed to respond. Doc. 8. Although the fifteen-day deadline has
expired, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to either of the Court's orders.

12
The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

13
14

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

22

guide a court in deciding how to proceed when a plaintiff fails to actively prosecute his or her

23

case. Id.

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
cannot proceed without Plaintiff=s cooperation and compliance with the orders at issue.

27
///
28
2

1
2
3

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

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 10, 2014

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3