Easley v. County of San Benito et al

Filing 98

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). All hearings and other deadlines are VACATED. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants and the Clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/29/2013. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/29/2013: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05520 EJD

GARY EASLEY,

11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff(s),

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
COUNTY OF SAN BENITO, et. al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

/

16

On May 17, 2013, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by May 28, 2013, why

17

this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute after Plaintiff failed, for a second time, to

18

file documents in anticipation of a jury trial according to the Amended Pretrial Order. See Docket

19

Item No. 94. The court informed Plaintiff that a jury trial could not commence without his pre-trial

20

documents, and further advised Plaintiff that this case would be dismissed if he did not respond or

21

otherwise demonstrate good cause for his failure to comply with the court’s orders. Id.

22

Plaintiff has not complied with the show cause order as directed. In addition, the court has

23

considered and weighed the factors designated by the Ninth Circuit in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

24

1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and finds that the first three factors - the public’s interest in expeditious

25

resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its impacted docket, and the risk of prejudice to

26

the Defendants - outweigh the public policy favoring a disposition on the merits. The court also

27

finds that less drastic sanctions are now unavailable since the case cannot move forward without

28

Plaintiff’s participation in the pre-trial process.
1
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05520 EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

1

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 41(b). All hearings and other deadlines are VACATED. Judgment will be entered in

3

favor of Defendants and the Clerk shall close this file.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: May 29, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-05520 EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE