Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01423/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01423-2/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

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

OFFICER BORDEN,

Defendant

Case No.1:14 cv 01423 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSINT THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

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

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

 

On January 13, 2015, an order was entered, directing Plaintiff to complete and return to 

the Court a completed USM 285 form for service upon Defendant Borden. Plaintiff was 

specifically cautioned that his failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to obey a 

court order. Plaintiff has not returned the completed form or in any way responded to the 

January 13, 2015, order.

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

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

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on October 8, 2014 (ECF No. 4).

Case 1:14-cv-01423-SAB Document 10 Filed 02/20/15 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

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 

an action, 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 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 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. 

Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

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

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

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 

542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases 

on the merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Case 1:14-cv-01423-SAB Document 10 Filed 02/20/15 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

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for Plaintiff’s 

failure to obey a court order. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01423-SAB Document 10 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 3