Richards v. Renfro et al

Filing 11

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 8/4/2014. Show Cause Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES DEMARCO RICHARDS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CHARLES RENFRO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1933-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 10)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

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

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff’s

20

complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to file a first

21

amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) The thirty day deadline has passed

22

without Plaintiff either filing an amended pleading or seeking an extension of time to do

23

so.

24

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a

7

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

8

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

9

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

10

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

11

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

12

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

13

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several

14

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need

15

to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy

16

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic

17

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

18

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

19

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

20

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

21

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

22

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting

23

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor --

24

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the

25

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser

26

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute

27

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not

28

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions
2

1

of little use.

2
3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

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

4

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

5

failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 10) and failure to

6

prosecute, or file an amended complaint, and

7

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the

8

undersigned shall dismiss this action, with prejudice, subject to the “three

9

strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658

10

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

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 4, 2014

/s/

14

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3