Byrd v. Pennywell, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Failure to Comply With a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/11/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CURTIS EDWARD BYRD,
10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

vs.
SANDRA PENNYWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-CV-00832 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER

Plaintiff Curtis Edward Byrd (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on June 18, 2015.
On July 17, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the

21

action should not be dismissed for failure to follow a court order. Plaintiff was granted fourteen

22

(14) days to file a response. The fourteen (14) day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not

23

responded to the order to show cause or otherwise communicated with the Court.

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: “Failure to show cause, or failure to respond to this order, will result in
dismissal of this action.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

5

his noncompliance with the Court’s order.
6

ORDER

7
8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff's
failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 11, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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