Murray v. McKay, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Failure to Obey a Court Order, Failure to Prosecute, and Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/06/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

WESLEY THOMAS MURRAY,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER,
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

MARSHA MCKAY, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:17-cv-0564-MJS (PC)

Defendants.

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
15
16

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

17

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

18

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) On August 21, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and

19

dismissed it with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was advised that

20

failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal of his case. (Id.) Over thirty

21

days has passed and Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint, request an

22

extension of time, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

23

Accordingly, on September 28, 2017, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to show cause

24

within fourteen days why his action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a Court

25

order. (ECF No. 12.) Over fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has again failed to

26

comply or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

27

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise

28

of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss
an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to
comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61
(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a
complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to
comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone
v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply
with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal
for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a
court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (1)
the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need to manage its
docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition
of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782
F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and
the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk
of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury
arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Anderson v.
Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage
in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a satisfactory lesser
sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis and
is therefore most likely indigent, making monetary sanctions of little use.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
2

1

1. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to

2
3

obey a court order, and failure to prosecute.
2. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate any and all pending motions and CLOSE

4

the case.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated:

November 6, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3