Cranford v. Seats et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION With Prejudice for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/19/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARCHIE CRANFORD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. JANESSA SEATS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 CASE NO. 1:14-cv-1102-MJS (PC) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF No. 11) 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 October 1, 2014, Plaintiff’s 19 complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to file a first 20 amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) The thirty day deadline passed 21 without Plaintiff either filing an amended pleading or seeking an extension of time to do 22 so. 23 On November 24, 2014, 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. 11.) 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 . . . dismissal of a case.” 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. 10 & 11) 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: December 19, 2014 /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?