Cranford v. Smith et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING Action without Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/1/14. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
ENBONY SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01886-LJO-BAM
)
) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
) PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on

20

November 21, 2013. On November 22, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or

21

decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff failed to comply with

22

the order. Accordingly, on January 7, 2014, the Court issued a second order requiring Plaintiff to file

23

a consent or decline form within thirty days. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the order.

24

Thereafter, on October 28, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to consent or decline to

25

the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge or show cause why this action should not be dismissed for

26

failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was to respond within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 9.) More than

27

twenty-one days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the

28
1

1

Court’s show cause order. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond would result dismissal of this

2

action without prejudice.

3

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,

4

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles

5

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to

6

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

7

of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

8

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

9

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th

10

Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to

11

do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

12

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s orders, the

13

Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action,

14

which has been pending since November 2013, can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation

15

and compliance with the orders at issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s

16

docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED without prejudice for

17

failure to prosecute.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

December 1, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2