Murrin, Jr. v. King et al
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/22/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DOUGLAS LYN MURRIN, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
E. KING, et al.,
15
16
17
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-cv-01331-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH A
COURT ORDER
Plaintiff Edwin Garcia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of
19
the United States Magistrate Judge on September 19, 2016. Local Rule 302.
20
On February 16, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within thirty days why the
21
action should not be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of limitations and failure to comply
22
with Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to
23
comply with the order would result in dismissal. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has
24
not complied with or otherwise responded to the order.
25
The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,
26
impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action.
27
County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to
28
comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution
1
Bautista v. Los Angeles
1
of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)
2
the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
3
sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th
4
Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do
5
and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226
6
(citation omitted).
7
In this case, two factors weigh against dismissal while three factors weigh in favor of
8
dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no discernible
9
prejudice to the defendants at this early stage in the proceedings, and public policy always favors
10
disposition on the merits. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-28; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-
11
43 (9th Cir. 2002); Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92.
12
expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal; the Court’s ability to manage its docket
13
and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised by noncompliance with orders; and
14
there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory given that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
15
pauperis and this action cannot proceed any further absent his compliance with the order. In re PPA,
16
460 F.3d at 1227-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990-92.
Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to
17
18
On the other hand, the public’s interest in
prosecute and comply with a court order.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated:
22
March 22, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?