Hubbard v. Gipson et al

Filing 8

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 08/04/2014. Show Cause Response due by 8/22/2014.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZANE HUBBARD, 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 Defendants. 13 14 CASE NO. 1:14-cv-0275-LJO-MJS (PC) (ECF No. 7) v. GIPSON, et al., 15 16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) The thirty day 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 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 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. 7) 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 recommend this action be dismissed, with prejudice, 9 subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 10 Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 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

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?