Sanchez v. Pedriero 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 (ECF No. 7 ), Fourteen (14) Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/29/2015. Show Cause Response due by 5/15/2015. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID RAY SANCHEZ,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00594-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. 7)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
18
Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
19
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2015, all of Plaintiff’s
20
claims were dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was given 30 days to file
21
an amended complaint. The thirty-day deadline passed without Plaintiff having filed an
22
amended pleading or seeking an extension of time to do so.
23
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
24
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
25
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
26
inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
27
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.
28
1
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
2
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure
3
to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
4
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-
5
61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a
6
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure
7
to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
8
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
9
comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
10
(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
11
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
12
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several
13
factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need
14
to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy
15
favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic
16
alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833
17
F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
18
In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation
19
and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
20
factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a
21
presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting
22
this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor --
23
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the
24
factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser
25
sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute
26
a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not
27
paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions
28
of little use.
2
1
2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall either show
3
cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for
4
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders (ECF No.
5
7), or file an amended complaint; and
6
2.
If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the
7
undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,
8
for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 29, 2015
/s/
12
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
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?