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)

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