Jones v. Magallon

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/12/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOLLIE JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-01897-DAD-MJS (PC) v. Y. MAGALLON, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. No. 24) 16 Plaintiff Hollie Jones, a prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 17 18 rights action on December 21, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 30, 2017, the assigned magistrate 19 judge screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint and directed plaintiff to file either a notice 20 of willingness to proceed on his claims found to be cognizable in that screening order or a third 21 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 22.) After more than thirty days passed and plaintiff failed to 22 respond in any way to that order, on April 17, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order 23 requiring plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days of the order why this action should not be 24 dismissed due to his failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 24.) Over 25 fourteen days passed and plaintiff has still failed to file a third amended complaint, request an 26 extension of time in which to do so, or otherwise respond to either the court’s screening order or 27 the order to show cause. 28 ///// 1 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that 1 2 power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” 3 Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 4 based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 5 local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 6 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint); Carey v. 8 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule 9 requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 10 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. 11 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to 12 comply with local rules). 13 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 14 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 15 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket, 16 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 17 their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 18 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 19 46 F.3d at 53. In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 20 21 court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 22 prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises 23 from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 24 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases on 25 their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 26 as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is nothing available 27 which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving this court’s scarce 28 ///// 2 1 resources. In this regard, plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, making the imposition of 2 monetary sanctions ineffective. 3 For the reasons set forth above: 4 1) This action is dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute; and 5 2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close this 6 7 8 case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 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?