Sanchez v. Uba et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/16/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CARLOS SANCHEZ, JR., 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 vs. L.V.N. UBA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:13-CV-01982 DLB PC ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff Carlos Sanchez, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on December 4, 2013. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on December 30, 2013. On December 2, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to 21 amend for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days 22 to file a First Amended Complaint. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to 23 comply or otherwise respond to the Court's order. 24 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 25 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and 26 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have the inherent 27 power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 28 1 1 2 3 4 including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 5 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 6 7 8 9 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 144041 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 10 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 11 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 12 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) the 15 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 16 17 18 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 19 46 F.3d at 53. 20 21 22 23 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. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 24 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 25 Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring 26 disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal 27 discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order 28 2 1 2 3 4 will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.” Thus, Plaintiff 5 had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 6 7 order. ORDER 8 9 10 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. This terminates this action in its entirety. 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis January 16, 2015 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?