Doop v. Woodford, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/18/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

CHRIS DOOP,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
WOODFORD, et al.,

15

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14cv01933 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

16

Plaintiff Chris Doop (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff commenced this action by writing a letter to

19

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 10, 2014. He

20
21

filed his complaint on October 24, 2014. On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) as a matter of right.1

22

On May 14, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC and dismissed it with leave to

23

amend. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Over thirty
24
25
26

(30) days passed and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with
the Court.

27
28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on December 12, 2014.
1

1
2
3
4

On July 6, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to follow a Court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was ordered to
file a response, or an amended complaint, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service.
Over twenty-one (21) days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a response or otherwise

5

contacted the Court.
6

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

7
8
9
10

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los
Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action
for failure to comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in

11

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

12

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

13

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products

14

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

15

These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in

16

order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

17

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”

18

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks

19

omitted). Further, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is

20
21

incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance
of litigants . . . .” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

22

This action has been pending since October 10, 2014, and Plaintiff has failed to file an

23

amended complaint. As a result, there is no operative complaint. Plaintiff has been given
24
25
26
27
28

numerous chances to do so, but has failed to comply with the Court’s order. The Court’s July 6,
2015, order also warned Plaintiff that dismissal would result if he failed to respond to the order.
///
///
2

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 18, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3