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