Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03289/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03289-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Order of Dismissal; Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Part for Plaintiff’s Failure to Prosecute 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Hernandez289dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL FRED HERNANDEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3289 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS IN

PART FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(Docket No. 13)

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint for damages under

the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the Federal Correctional Institution in

Dublin, California and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Court ordered service of the

complaint on July 25, 2005. On September 19, 2005, Defendants made a special

appearance by filing an ex parte request for the following administrative relief: an order

unsealing the file, an order requiring that service be effected on Defendants as required by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an extension of time to file documents as set

forth in the Court’s order of service. On February 16, 2006, the Court issued a second

order of service and granted Defendants’ requests to unseal the case and for an extension

**Original filed 8/2/06**

Case 5:03-cv-03289-JF Document 17 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Part for Plaintiff’s Failure to Prosecute 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Hernandez289dis 2

of time. In its February 17, 2006 order, the Court issued a further scheduling order and

directed Plaintiff to file a notice of intent to prosecute within thirty days, as Plaintiff had

not communicated with the Court since April 2004. The Court notified Plaintiff that

failure to file a notice of his current address and whether he wishes to continue to pursue

the claims set forth in his complaint within thirty days would result in the dismissal of this

action pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128,

133 (9th Cir. 1987) (a court should afford the litigant prior notice before dismissing for

failure to prosecute). On March 3, 2006, the Court’s order sent to Plaintiff’s current

address was returned by mail as undeliverable. On May 17, 2006, Defendants filed a

motion to dismiss the instant complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court in over

two years, nor responded to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. A district court may sua

sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633

(1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). The court should

consider five factors before dismissing an action under Rule 41(b): (1) the public interest

in the expeditious resolution of the litigation: (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions;

and (5) the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits. See Malone ,

833 F.2d at 130. 

The first three factors, above, weigh in favor of dismissal in light of the amount of

time since Plaintiff’s last communication with the Court and Plaintiff’s failure to respond

to the Court’s February 17, 2006 Order. The fourth factor also weighs in favor of

dismissal because less drastic sanctions would have little impact in light of Plaintiff’s

apparent lack of interest in this case. Although the fifth factor appears to weigh against

dismissal, dismissal is appropriate in light of the other four factors. See Pagtalunan v.

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding district court did not abuse its

Case 5:03-cv-03289-JF Document 17 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Hernandez289dis 3

discretion in dismissing petition with prejudice where three of the five factors weighed in

favor of dismissal). 

Accordingly, the instant complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute (docket no. 13). Based upon this dismissal, the Court declines to

address Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk

shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/2/06 /S/electronic signature authorized

Case 5:03-cv-03289-JF Document 17 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Hernandez289dis 4

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Daniel Fred Hernandez, Jr.

96535-011

P.O. Box 3511

New York, NY 10008-3511

Chinhayi J. Coleman

United States Attorney’s Office

150 Almaden Blvd, Suite 900

San Jose, CA 95113-2009

Case 5:03-cv-03289-JF Document 17 Filed 08/02/06 Page 4 of 4