Henson v. Federal Bureau of Narcotics et al

Filing 8

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey Court Order re 6 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/8/16. Show Cause Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERICK D. HENSON,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS,
et al.,

1:16-cv-00670-GSA-PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT
ORDER
(ECF No. 6.)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND

Defendants.

17
18
19

On September 29, 2016, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit an

20

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing fee for this action, within forty-

21

five days. (ECF No. 6.) More than forty-five days have passed and Plaintiff has not paid the

22

filing fee, submitted an application, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1

23

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives

24

set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in

25
26
27
28

1

On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 7.) Therefore, pursuant
to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any
and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule
Appendix A(k)(3).
1

1

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

2

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the

3

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d

4

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

5

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”

6

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the

7

action has been pending since May 2, 2016. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s order

8

may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot

9

continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not do his part to resolve

10

payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor

11

of dismissal.

12

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

13

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently

14

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and

15

it is Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis

16

that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

17

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

18

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

19

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff appears unable or

20

unwilling to pay the filing fee for this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given

21

the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available.

22

However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the

23

Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

24
25
26

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always
weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

27

In light of the foregoing analysis, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to respond in

28

writing to this order, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, showing
2

1

good cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

2

Court’s order issued on September 29, 2016. Failure to respond to this order will result in

3

dismissal of this action, without prejudice.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 8, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
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
3