Rodriguez v. Warden, CA City Correctional Institution, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING Action for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/13/14. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALEJANDRO U. RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No. 1:14-cv-00463 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

WARDEN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Alejandro U. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a former state1 prisoner proceeding pro se

18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action in the Central District of

19

California on February 10, 2014.
On March 27, 2014, the Central District issued an order severing and transferring two of the

20
21

claims to this Court.
On October 17, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to

22
23

amend. Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. More than thirty days

24

have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. As a

25

result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted.

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff was incarcerated for a period of time in federal prisons.

1

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

6

appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)

7

(per curiam). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

8

an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.

9

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

10

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

11

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

12

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk

19

of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

20

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

21

1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

22

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

23

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action

24

has been pending since February 10, 2014, and there is no operative complaint. The third factor, risk

25

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

26

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d

27

522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

28

merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.
2

1

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in

2

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

3

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s October 17, 2014, order

4

warned Plaintiff that his action may be dismissed if he did not file an amended complaint.

5
6

ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to obey

7

the Court’s October 17, 2014, order and for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of the Court is directed

8

to close this action.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

December 13, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3