Huapaya v. Davey et al

Filing 67

ORDER DISMISSING Action for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/8/2020. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENRIQUE HUAPAYA, 12 13 14 No. 1:17-cv-01441-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE D. DAVEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Enrique Huapaya is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 20 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is currently scheduled for a telephonic trial 21 confirmation hearing on December 14, 2020, and for jury trial on February 17, 2021, before the 22 undersigned. 23 On January 3, 2020, the court issued a second scheduling order, which required plaintiff to 24 file a pretrial statement by October 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 57.) That deadline has passed, and 25 plaintiff has not filed his pretrial statement as required. 26 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action, due to a plaintiff’s 27 failure to comply with a court order. In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to 28 comply with the directives set forth in its order, 1 [T]he Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. 1 2 3 4 5 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 6 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 7 On November 18, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action should not be 8 dismissed due to his failure to comply with the court’s prior orders and his failure to prosecute 9 this action. (Doc. No. 66.) Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond to that order. (Id.) 10 The court specifically warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with that order would result in a 11 dismissal of this action. (Id.) The deadline for plaintiff to respond to the order to show cause has 12 expired and no response thereto nor any other communication has been filed by plaintiff. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. court orders and failure to prosecute; 15 16 This action is dismissed without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with 2. All future hearing dates in this action, including the December 14, 2020 telephonic 17 trial confirmation hearing and the February 17, 2021 jury trial date, are vacated; 18 and 19 20 21 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 8, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?