Long v. California

Filing 4

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/29/2014. Show Cause Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Attachments: # 1 Non-Prisoner IFP Applcaiton) (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN M. LONG,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-1756-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 3)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

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 November 17, 2014, the Court
19
ordered Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the
20
$400 filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 5.) The thirty day deadline passed without
21
Plaintiff either filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paying the $400 filing
22
fee, or seeking an extension of time to do so.
23

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

24
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
25
26
27
28

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

1

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

2

on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

3

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

4

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

5

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint);

6

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

7

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not

27

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions

28

of little use.
2

1
2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall either show

3

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for

4

failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 3) and failure to

5

prosecute, file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $400

6

filing fee in full;

7

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause, file an application to proceed in forma

8

pauperis on the appropriate form, or pay the $400 filing fee in full, the

9

undersigned will recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice

10
11

for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute; and
3.

12

The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff the attached form for application to
proceed in forma pauperis for a non-prisoner.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 29, 2014

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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