Calloway v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 15

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Action Should not be Dismissed with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey a Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/24/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

JAMISI JAMES CALLOWAY,

13
14
15
16

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

17
18

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01305-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT
ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 12)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

19
20
21

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

22

On January 18, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint but gave thirty

23

days leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for

24

reconsideration of the Court’s screening order. (ECF No. 13.) On April 26, 2017, the

25

District Judge assigned to the case denied the motion for reconsideration and directed

26

Plaintiff to file his amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) To date, Plaintiff

27

has not filed an amended complaint or a request for additional time.

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.” District courts have the

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

of little use.

6
7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

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

8

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

9

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

10

failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the

11

Court’s order; and

12

2.

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

13

voluntary dismissal, the undersigned will recommend that the action be

14

dismissed.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 24, 2017

/s/

18

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3