Jones v. Fresno County Jail

Filing 11

ORDER Dismissing Action without Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/14. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LATONIA JONES,

12
13
14

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
FRESNO COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01131-LJO-BAM PC
)
) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
) PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff LaTonia Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a former jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on July

20

22, 2013. On July 23, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate

21

Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) The order was re-served on Plaintiff on September

22

10, 2013. Plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Accordingly, on January 2, 2014, the Court issued

23

a second order requiring Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to

24

comply with the order. Thereafter, on February 10, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff

25

to consent or decline to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge or show cause why this action should

26

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was to respond within twenty-one days. (ECF No.

27

8.) The Court also issued an order directing Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge

28

jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 9.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not
1

1

complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s show cause order. Plaintiff was warned that

2

failure to respond would result dismissal of this action without prejudice.

3

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

4

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles

5

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

6

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

7

of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

8

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

9

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th

10

Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to

11

do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

12

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s orders, the

13

Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action,

14

which has been pending since July 2013, can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and

15

compliance with the orders at issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket,

16

unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

17

prosecute.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 19, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2