Solomon v. Castaneda et al

Filing 29

ORDER DISMISSING Action With Prejudice for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute; Clerk to Close Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/27/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VINCENT SOLOMON,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
I. CASTANEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE No. 1:15-cv-01801-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 16)
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

17
18
19

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

20

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to Magistrate

21

Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) No other parties have appeared in the action.

22

Plaintiff initiated this action on November 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On August 8,

23

2016, the assigned District Judge screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint and concluded

24

that it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants

25

Castaneda, Press, and Sanchez. Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed for failure to

26

state a cognizable claim – some with leave to amend and some without leave to amend.

27

The Court also dismissed certain defendants without leave to amend. (ECF No. 16.) The

28

complaint itself was dismissed and Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days to file a second

1

amended complaint. (Id.)

2

Plaintiff proceeded to file four motions for extension of time to file a second

3

amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 17, 19, 21, 24.) The motions were granted, but in

4

granting the fourth motion, filed January 30, 2017 (ECF No. 24), the Court warned

5

Plaintiff that further extensions of time were unlikely. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff was ordered

6

to file an amended complaint but also was given the option of notifying the Court of his

7

willingness to proceed only on the claims previously found cognizable. (Id.)

8

Plaintiff then failed to timely file a second amended complaint, notify the Court of

9

his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims or otherwise respond to the

10

Court’s order. (Id.) Accordingly, on April 20, 2017, the Court issued an order to show

11

cause for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff

12

then filed a fifth motion for extension of time on May 11, 2017. (ECF No. 27.) The Court

13

denied the motion and ordered Plaintiff, within twenty-one days, to either file an

14

amended complaint or advise the Court whether he wishes to proceed on the excessive

15

force claim previously found cognizable. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff was advised that the

16

failure to timely respond would result in dismissal of the action for failure to obey a court

17

order and failure to prosecute. (Id.) The twenty-one day deadline passed without Plaintiff

18

either filing an amended complaint, stating his willingness to proceed only on cognizable

19

claims, or otherwise responding to the Court’s order.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

(dismissing for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 12602

1

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

2

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

3

failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

4

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing

5

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

6

Cir. 1986) (dismissing for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. With respect to the availability of lesser

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

of little use. Finally, the order to show cause warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply

25

may result in dismissal, with prejudice. (ECF No. 26.) Thus, Plaintiff was on notice that

26

his failure to communicate with the Court could result in dismissal of his complaint.

27

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

28

1.

The action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to comply with the
3

Court’s orders (ECF Nos. 16, 28) and failure to prosecute; and

1
2

2.

3

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close
the case.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 27, 2017

/s/

7

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4