Cranford v. King et al
Filing
21
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION With Prejudice for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/13/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARCHIE CRANFORD,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
AUDREY KING, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-1002-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF Nos. 19 & 20)
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
17
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2015, Plaintiff’s first
19
amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to
20
file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 19.) The thirty day deadline
21
passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended pleading or seeking an extension of
22
time to do so.
23
On March 12, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen
24
days, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure
25
26
to prosecute. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order to show cause.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
27
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
28
1
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
2
inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
3
impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.
4
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
5
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure
6
to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
7
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-
8
61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a
9
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure
10
to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
11
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
12
comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
13
(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
14
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey
15
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several
16
factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need
17
to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy
18
favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic
19
alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833
20
F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
21
In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation
22
and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
23
factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a
24
presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting
25
this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor --
26
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the
27
factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser
28
sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute
2
1
a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not
2
paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions
3
of little use.
4
5
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Court’s orders (ECF Nos. 19 & 20) and failure to prosecute; and
6
7
The action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to comply with the
2.
8
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close
the case.
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 13, 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?