Murray v. McKay, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Action Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 09/28/2017. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

WESLEY THOMAS MURRAY,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MARSHA MCKAY, et al.,
Defendants.

15

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00564--MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 11)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to Magistrate Judge
19
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.)
20

On August 21, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with

21
leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 11.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an
22
amended complaint, a notice of voluntary dismissal, or a request for additional time.
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
26

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

of little use.
2

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

2

1.

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

3

an amended complaint or notice of willingness to proceed, or shall show

4

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

5

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No.

6

11); and

7

2.

8

If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint or notice of
willingness to proceed, the undersigned will dismiss this case.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 28, 2017

/s/

12

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3