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)

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