Woodrow v. County of Merced et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Obey a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/02/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHANNON WOODROW,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

No. 1: 13-cv-1505-AWI-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

14

COUNTY OF MERCED et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Channon Woodrow (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se and filed a complaint,

20

alleging civil rights violations, various constitutional claims, as well as state law claims. (Doc. 1).

21

Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on September 24, 2013. (Doc. 5). No

22

Defendant has been served with any complaint or has appeared in this action.

23
This Court screened Plaintiff’s case and dismissed the complaint with leave to file an
24
25

amended complaint. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which the

26

Court also screened. (Docs. 7 & 8). Plaintiff’s FAC was dismissed with leave to file an amended

27

complaint, however, Plaintiff was ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) no later

28
1

1
2
3

than February 17, 2015. (Doc. 8). To date, Plaintiff has not done so.
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 11 110 provides that “a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

4
Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
5
6

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent

7

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

8

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829,

9

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to

10

prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

11

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local

12
13
14

rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply
with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 41 (9th

15

Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

16

apprized of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal

17

for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.

18
19

1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining
whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to

20
21

comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in

22

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

23

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

24

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260

25

61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 24.

26
27

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this
litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because

28
2

1

there is no indication that the Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action. The third factor, risk of

2

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises

3

from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524

4
(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is
5
6

greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that

7

his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

8

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132 33; Henderson, 779

9

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a SAC was clear that dismissal would

10

result from non-compliance with the Court's order. (Doc. 8, pg. 17).

11
12
13
14

ORDER
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with a court order.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 2, 2015

18

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3