Everett v. Black

Filing 16

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 5/5/2017. Show Cause Response, Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD EVERETT,

12
13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01285-AWI-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

Defendant.

(ECF No. 9)

v.
M. BLACK,

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

18
19

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

20

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has declined Magistrate Judge

21

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.) No other parties have appeared.

22

On January 17, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint and

23

found it stated no cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.) The Court dismissed the complaint

24

and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary

25

dismissal. Id. Plaintiff requested and was granted two extensions of time to file his

26

amended complaint. On April 19, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s third request for an

27

extension of time and directed Plaintiff to file his amended complaint within fourteen

28

1

days. (ECF No. 15.) The fourteen day deadline has passed and Plaintiff has filed neither

2

an amended complaint nor a notice of voluntary dismissal.

3

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

4

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

5

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

6

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

7

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.

8

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

9

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure

10

to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

11

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

12

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a

13

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure

14

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

15

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

16

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

17

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

18

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

19

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several

20

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need

21

to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy

22

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic

23

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833

24

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

25

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation

26

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third

27

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

28

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting
2

1

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor --

2

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the

3

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser

4

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute

5

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not

6

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions

7

of little use.

8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

9

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either

10

an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal, or shall show

11

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for

12

failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a Court order, and failure to

13

state a claim; and

14

2.

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

15

voluntary dismissal, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, subject to

16

the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 5, 2017

/s/

20

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3