Johnson v. CMF et al
Filing
17
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/2/2017 ORDERING that plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE within fourteen days from the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JACKIE M. JOHNSON,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:15-cv-1609 DB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY,
et al.,
Defendants.
17
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. On April 13, 2017,
19
plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened and found to state a single First Amendment
20
retaliation claim against Correctional Officer Partee. All other claims and defendants were
21
dismissed. Plaintiff was then granted thirty days to file either a second amended complaint or a
22
notice of his willingness to proceed on the pleading as screened. To date, plaintiff has not filed an
23
amended pleading or a notice.
24
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
25
or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
26
27
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 impose sanctions including,
28
1
1
where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th
2
Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute,
3
failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46
4
F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
5
963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
6
amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for
7
failure 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 comply
9
with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
10
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 a court
12
order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the
13
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket,
14
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
15
their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;
16
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,
17
46 F.3d at 53.
18
In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
19
Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of
20
prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises
21
from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542
22
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on
23
their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally,
24
as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available
25
which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources.
26
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary
27
sanctions of little use.
28
////
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen
2
days from the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply
3
with a court order.
4
Dated: June 2, 2017
5
6
7
8
DLB7;
DB/Inbox/Routine/john1609.osc
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?