Armstrong v. Hicks

Filing 24

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed with Prejudice for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/18/14. 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01878-AWI-MJS (PC)

12
Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

Defendant.

(ECF No. 21)

13
v.
14
HICKS,
15
16

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for

21

failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to file a first amended complaint by not later

22

than January 30, 2014 (ECF No. 8). That deadline was extended to May 12, 2014 at

23

Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 21).

24
25
26

The May 12, 2014 deadline has passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended
pleading or seeking an extension of time to do so.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

27

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and

28

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent
1

1

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

2

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing

3

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice,

4

based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply

5

with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal

6

for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

7

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint);

8

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with

9

local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S.

10

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

11

court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack

12

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

13

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

14

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (1)

15

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need to manage its

16

docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition

17

of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782

18

F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

19

1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

20

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and

21

the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk

22

of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury

23

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Anderson v.

24

Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring

25

disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of

26

dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage

27

in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a satisfactory lesser

28

sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this
2

1

action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions of little use.

2

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

4

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall either show

5

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure

6

to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 21) and failure to prosecute, or file

7

an amended complaint, and

8

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the undersigned
shall recommend this action be dismissed, with prejudice, subject to the

9
10

“three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio,

11

658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 18, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3