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)

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