Maciel v. CDCR, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Action Should not be Dismissed with Prejudice for Failure to Obey a court Order and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 08/02/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ARMANDO MACIEL,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00996-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 13)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19

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

20

On March 23, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended civil rights

21

complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff

22

requested (ECF Nos. 14 & 16) and was granted (ECF Nos. 15 & 17) two thirty-day

23

extensions of time to file his second amended complaint, most recently on June 20,

24

2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary

25

dismissal, nor has he requested an extension of 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

6

an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal, 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

13); and

10

2.

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

11

voluntary dismissal, the undersigned will recommend this action will be

12

dismissed, with prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 2, 2017

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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