Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02236/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02236-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. SHALTS, et al.

Defendant.

Case No. CIV S-02-2236 JKS P

O R D E R

Robert L. Brown, a California state prisoner serving a term of

imprisonment after convictions in state superior court, brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that medical

treatment he received within the institution, particularly with

regard to the administration of medicine, constituted conscious

indifference to his medical needs. This Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. 

On August 24, 2004, the Court issued a scheduling and planning

order that required the filing of dispositive motions, if any, on

or before March 4, 2005. Docket No. 33. No dispositive motions or

motions for extensions of time were filed. On April 11, 2005, the

Court directed the parties to file separate status reports on or

before May 6, 2005, indicating whether the case was ready to

proceed to trial. Docket No. 37. Neither party filed the

requested report. In fact, the only thing filed since the Court’s

Case 2:02-cv-02236-JKS Document 39 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 3
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-02-22326.007.wpd

request is a notice of change of address by Plaintiff on April 14,

2005.

DISCUSSION 

“That a court has power to dismiss an action for want of

prosecution on its own motion, both under [Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure] 41(b), or under its local rule, or even in the absence

of such rules is settled” in the Ninth Circuit. States S.S. Co. v.

Philippine Air Lines, 426 F.2d 803, 804 (9th Cir. 1970). Factors

relevant to dismissal for failure to prosecute include: “(1) the

[plaintiff’s] right to a hearing on its claim, (2) the impairment

of [defendant’s] defenses presumed from the unreasonable delay, (3)

the wholesome policy of the law in favor of the prompt disposition

of law suits, and (4) the duty of the [plaintiff] to proceed with

due diligence.” Id. at 805. 

Here, the date of the Court’s order requesting a status report

and the date of Plaintiff’s change of address notice nearly

coincide. It seems possible that Plaintiff was in transition when

the Court requested the status reports and did not receive the

Order. In an abundance of caution, therefore, the Court will again

request status reports from both parties indicating what needs to

occur to move this case along to trial. Plaintiff is warned that

failure to file the report by the below specified date will result

in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

The parties are each directed to file a status report with

regard to whether this case is ready to proceed to trial. The

parties’ reports are to be filed on or before January 4, 2006 .

Case 2:02-cv-02236-JKS Document 39 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 3
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-02-2236.007.wpd

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 13 day of December 2005.

/s/ James K. Singleton

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:02-cv-02236-JKS Document 39 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3