Jones v. Magallon

Filing 24

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action should not be Dismissed for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute; Show Cause Response due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/14/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

HOLLIE JONES,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01897-DAD-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.
Y. MAGALLON, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 22)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19

On January 30, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

20
and found it stated cognizable claims against Defendant Magallon for excessive force
21

and retaliation. (ECF No. 22.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining claims and

22
directed Plaintiff to file either a third amended complaint or a notice of willingness to
23
proceed only on his cognizable claims within thirty days. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not
24
filed an amended complaint, a notice of willingness to proceed, or a request for
25
additional time.
26

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute
2

1

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

2

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

3

of little use.

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

5

1.

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

6

third amended complaint or notice of willingness to proceed, or shall show

7

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

8

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

9

22); and

10

2.

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint or notice of

11

willingness to proceed, the undersigned will recommend that the action be

12

dismissed, with prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 14, 2017

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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