Garrett v. Igbinosa

Filing 22

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 04/04/17. Show Cause Response due (14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES JAMIL GARRETT, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, CASE No. 1:16-cv-00259-MJS (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF NO. 21) v. DR. NGOZI IGBINOSA, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE Defendant. 16 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. 5.) No other parties have appeared in the action. 22 On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff was directed to submit service documents within 23 thirty days to effectuate service on Defendant Dr. Ngozi Igbinosa. (ECF No. 21.) That 24 thirty-day period has now passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order or 25 submitted the necessary documents. 26 27 28 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 2 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 3 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 4 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the 5 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 6 dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 7 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 8 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. 9 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 10 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 11 comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 12 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro 13 se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 14 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. 15 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and 16 failure to comply with local rules). 17 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 18 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several 19 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need 20 to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy 21 favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic 22 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 23 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 24 In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 25 and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 26 factor, risk of prejudice to Defendant, neither weighs for nor against dismissal since no 27 Defendant has yet to appear in this action. The fourth factor – public policy favoring 28 2 1 disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 2 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this 3 stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a satisfactory 4 lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing 5 fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions of little use. 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT within fourteen days Plaintiff shall 7 show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court 8 order. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 4, 2017 /s/ 12 Michael J. Seng 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?