Arcelus v. Mimms
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE for failure to comply with Court Order 4 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/1/2016. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
1:15-cv-01783-EPG-PC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
(ECF No. 4.)
MARGARET MIMMS,
Defendant.
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
16
17
Michael Scott Arcelus (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with this civil
18
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this
19
action on November 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1.)
20
On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this
21
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF
22
No. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of
23
California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as
24
reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
25
On December 5, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit a non-
26
prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action,
27
within thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) The thirty-day time period expired, and Plaintiff failed to
28
comply with the Court‟s order or otherwise respond to the order.
1
1
On February 8, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause, requiring Plaintiff to
2
respond within thirty days showing cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his
3
failure to comply with the Court‟s order of December 5, 2015. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was
4
forewarned in the order to show cause that his failure to respond as required would result in the
5
dismissal of this case. (Id. at 3 ¶2.) The thirty-day time period has expired, and Plaintiff has
6
not filed a response to the order to show cause or otherwise respond to the order.
7
In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives
8
set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public‟s interest in
9
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court‟s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
10
prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the
11
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
12
639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).
13
“„The public‟s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,‟”
14
id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the
15
action has been pending since November 30, 2015. Plaintiff‟s failure to respond to the Court‟s
16
order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court
17
cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by
18
resolving the payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors
19
weigh in favor of dismissal.
20
Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in
21
and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently
22
increases the risk that witnesses‟ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and
23
it is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court‟s order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third
24
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
25
As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little
26
available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the
27
Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not paid the
28
filing fee for this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of
2
1
these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch
2
as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short
3
of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
4
5
Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7
1.
8
9
This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to
obey the Court=s order of December 4, 2015; and
2.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 1, 2016
/s/
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?