Brown v. Karlow et al

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING Action for Failure to Follow Court Orders and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/15/16: This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

E’DRICK BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
PETERSON,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14cv00705 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDERS
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

16

Plaintiff E’drick Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on May 12, 2014. Pursuant to Court

19

order, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 5, 2014.1

20
21
22

On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to
amend. Plaintiff requested and received numerous extensions of time within which to file an
amended complaint, but he failed to do so.

23

The Court then issued an order to show cause on February 29, 2016. Plaintiff was
24
25

ordered to file a response thirty (30) days of the date of service.
Plaintiff has failed to file a response or otherwise communicate with the Court.

26
27
28

///
1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May 21, 2014.
1

1

DISCUSSION

2
3
4
5

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that
power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los
Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action
for failure to comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in

6
7
8
9

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (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 sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products

10

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

11

These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in

12

order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

13

In this case, while there is no discernible prejudice to the Defendants at this early stage in

14

the proceedings, and public policy always favors disposition on the merits, the public’s interest

15

in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal. Moreover, the Court’s ability to

16
17
18

manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised by
noncompliance with orders. This case has been pending since May 12, 2014, and Plaintiff has
failed to file an amended complaint for over a year. Finally, there are no alternative sanctions

19

which are satisfactory given that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and this action cannot
20
21
22
23

proceed any further absent his compliance with the order. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-29;
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990-92. The Court also notes that Plaintiff
was also warned that dismissal would result from his failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
2

1
2

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED, without prejudice, for
failure to obey the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
6

/s/ Dennis

April 15, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3