Borja v. Williams et al

Filing 48

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/9/17. Show Cause Response Due Within 21-Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANIA BORJA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:13-cv-01445-DAD-GSA v. K. WILLIAMS and S. JOHNSON, 15 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Tania Borja is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is currently scheduled for a 19 telephonic trial confirmation hearing on June 12, 2017, and for jury trial on August 8, 2017, 20 before Judge Dale A. Drozd. 21 On March 8, 2017, the court issued a second scheduling order, which required plaintiff to 22 file a pretrial statement by April 12, 2017. (Doc. No. 44.) That deadline has passed, and plaintiff 23 has not filed her pretrial statement.1 24 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action, for failure to comply 25 with a court order. The court is prepared to dismiss this case in its entirety based on plaintiff’s 26 failure to comply with the court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. In determining 27 28 1 In addition, plaintiff has failed to timely file a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, if any, which was due on May 1, 2017. (See Doc. No. 47.) 1 1 whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth in its order, “the 2 Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 3 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 4 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy 5 favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 6 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 7 At this stage in the litigation, the court finds it appropriate to provide plaintiff with an 8 additional opportunity to proceed. Accordingly, the court directs plaintiff Borja to file a written 9 response within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order showing cause why this case 10 should not be dismissed due to her failure to comply with the court’s prior orders and failure to 11 prosecute this action. In response to this order, plaintiff should either (1) file a pretrial statement, 12 as described in the court’s second scheduling order (see Doc. No. 44), and a motion for the 13 attendance of incarcerated witnesses (see id.; Doc. No. 47); or (2) explain why the court should 14 grant her a further extension of time in which to file those documents. Any failure on plaintiff’s 15 part to comply with this order will likely result in the dismissal of this action. 16 For the reasons set forth above, 17 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order, accompanied by a copy of the court’s second scheduling order (Doc. No. 44), on plaintiff; 18 19 2. The telephonic trial confirmation hearing, currently set for June 12, 2017, and the jury 20 21 trial, currently set for August 8, 2017, are vacated; and 3. Plaintiff Borja shall file a written response to this order within twenty-one (21) days of 22 23 24 service of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

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?