Miller v. Walters
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING Action, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for Failure to Comply With Court Order 6 ; ORDER for Clerk to Close Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/31/14. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRUCE MILLER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
JAMES WALTERS,
15
Defendant.
16
1:14-cv-00898-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
COURT ORDER
(Doc. 6.)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE
CASE
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Bruce Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
20
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
21
commencing this action on June 12, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff consented to
22
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties
23
have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local
24
Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all
25
proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local
26
Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
27
On September 3, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to
28
state a claim, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 6.) The thirty1
1
day time period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise
2
responded to the court’s order.
3
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives
4
set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public=s interest in
5
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
6
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
7
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
8
639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
9
A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@
10
id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the
11
action has been pending since June 12, 2014. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order
12
may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot
13
continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by
14
returning the court’s form pursuant to the court’s orders. Thus, both the first and second factors
15
weigh in favor of dismissal.
16
Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
17
and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently
18
increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it
19
is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third
20
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
21
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
22
available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
23
Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in
24
forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage
25
of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However,
26
inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is
27
stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
28
///
2
1
2
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1.
5
6
This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey
the court=s order of September 3, 2014; and
2.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 31, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
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?