Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01633-6/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE JAMISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CAPELLO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01633-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 32)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendant Capello on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, and against Defendants Capello and 

Kuntz on Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment deliberate indifference and Fourteenth 

Amendment equal protection claims. (ECF No. 16.)

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on November 20, 2014. (ECF 

No. 30.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required 

under Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, on January 7, 2014, the Court advised Plaintiff of 

his rights, obligations, and methods for opposing Defendants’ motion, and afforded 

Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition could result in dismissal of the action for failure to 

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 33 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

prosecute.

The twenty-one day deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition, or seeking an extension of time to do so. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 

and all 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, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure 

to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several 

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 the defendants, (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic 

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 33 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff is likely 

unable to pay monetary sanction, making such sanctions of little use.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show 

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 32) and failure to 

prosecute, or file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment;

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an opposition or statement of nonopposition, the undersigned will dismiss the action with prejudice for failure 

to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 33 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 3