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)
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?