Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01808/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01808-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. RAMIREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1: 13-cv-01808-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT 

ORDER (ECF No. 22)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 21)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) Plaintiff has 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) 

I. MOTION FOR COURT ORDER

On April 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order to direct the prison

where he is currently housed, California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, to accept, 

address, and return his grievances. (ECF No. 22.) The prison is not a party to the 

Case 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT Document 23 Filed 05/11/15 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 2

instant action, and the Court has no power to issue an order against individuals who are 

not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On January 13, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and 

entered an order requiring him to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of 

his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim only. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff 

requested two extensions of time, which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 18 & 21.) The 

April 28, 2015 deadline has now passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended 

pleading, notifying the Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim alone,

or seeking an additional extension of time.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure 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 

inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” 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-

63 (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 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 

1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

Case 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT Document 23 Filed 05/11/15 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 3

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 [C]ourt’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.

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 

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

this action. See 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 has not paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making 

monetary sanctions of little use.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order is (ECF No. 22.) DENIED;

2. 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. 21) and failure to 

prosecute, or file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his 

willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim alone; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint or notify the 

Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim alone, the 

undersigned shall dismiss this action, with prejudice, subject to the “three 

Case 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT Document 23 Filed 05/11/15 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 4

strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 

F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT Document 23 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 4