Webb v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING Action (Strike) with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey a Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute; Clerk to TERMINATE Pending Motions and CLOSE CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/26/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONNELL WEBB,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,

16
17

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-1528-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT
ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF Nos. 21, 22)
CLERK TO TERMINATE PENDING
MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE

18

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

19

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to

20

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. No other parties have appeared in the action.

21

On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed for failure to

22

state a claim, but he was given leave to amend. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff did not file an

23

amended pleading in the time provided and, on May 28, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff

24

to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state

25

a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff did

26

not respond to the order to show cause.

27
28

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

1

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

2

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

3

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

4

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.

5

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

6

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure

7

to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

8

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

9

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a

10

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure

11

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

12

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

13

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

14

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

15

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

16

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several

17

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need

18

to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy

19

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic

20

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833

21

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

22

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation

23

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third

24

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

25

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting

26

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –

27

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the

28

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser
2

1

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute

2

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff is likely

3

unable to pay monetary sanctions, making such sanctions of little use.

4

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure

6

to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute;

7

2. Dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

8

3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to terminate any and all pending motions and

9

to close the case.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 26, 2015

/s/

13

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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