Jackson v. Smalley et al

Filing 21

ORDER Dismissing Action 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 8/2/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK JACKSON,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
L. SMALLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE No. 1:17-cv-00110-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT
ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF Nos. 9, 18)
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

17
18
19

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

20

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to Magistrate

21

Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13.) No other parties have appeared in the action.

22

On February 13, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) for

23

failure to state a claim, but granted him thirty days to amend (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff then

24

twice requested, and twice was given, extensions of time to file an amended complaint.

25

However, the Court’s May 5, 2017, extension was noted to be the last Plaintiff would be

26

given “absent a showing of good cause based on presently unforeseeable

27

circumstances.” (ECF No. 16.) (emphasis in original). The thirty day deadline provided

28

1

there passed without Plaintiff filing an amended pleading or otherwise responding to the

2

Court.

3

Accordingly, on June 20, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his

4

case should not be dismissed, with prejudice. (ECF No. 18.) The Court gave Plaintiff

5

fourteen days within which to respond to the order to show cause. Plaintiff failed to do

6

so, but on July 10, 2017, did move for an extension of time to respond to the Court’s

7

order to show cause. (ECF No. 19.) The Court denied that request on July 26, 2017,

8

stating:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Despite being warned that any request for more time would
have to be based on then-unforeseen circumstances,
Plaintiff’s July 10 motion presents the same reasons
previously given. He does, however, add a claim that he
needs more time because he has sustained “serious injuries”
and his property has been “misplaced.” Plaintiff fails to
specify the nature of the property misplaced, how it was
misplaced, when it was misplaced, how long it was
misplaced, or how its misplacement affected his ability to
respond. Similarly, he does not describe the injury, when it
occurred, or how and for how long it affected his ability to
respond to the Court’s order. Considering the Court’s earlier
extensions of time and its warning that a further extension
request would have to be based upon a showing of good
cause, Plaintiff’s bare assertion of “serious injury” and
misplaced property cannot justify granting yet another
extension of time. Plaintiff has had five months to amend his
pleading and he appears to have disregarded the import of
the warnings given. There is no good cause for further
extension of time to respond to the order to show cause or to
amend the complaint.
(ECF No. 20.)

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

7

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing

8

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

9

Cir. 1986) (dismissing for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. With respect to the availability of lesser

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

of little use. Finally, the order to show cause warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply

28

may result in dismissal, with prejudice. (ECF No. 18.) Thus, Plaintiff was on notice that
3

1

his failure to communicate with the Court could result in dismissal of his complaint.

2

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

3

1.

The action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure

4

to comply with the Court’s orders (ECF Nos. 9, 18), and failure to

5

prosecute; and

6

2.

7

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close
the case.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 2, 2017

/s/

11

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4