Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00785/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00785-2/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

CHARLES ANTHONY WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANELLE REYNOSO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00785-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING 

MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE

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

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge 

Jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) On June 17, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for 

failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend. (ECF No. 6.) When 

Plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading, the Court, on August 5, 2015, issued an 

order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has 

not responded to the Court’s order to show cause.

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.” In re 

Case 1:15-cv-00785-MJS Document 9 Filed 09/02/15 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

Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 

Thompson v. Hous. 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

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 

356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (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); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(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. In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1226; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 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 

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

Case 1:15-cv-00785-MJS Document 9 Filed 09/02/15 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

this action. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). 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.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure 

to obey a court order;

2. The Clerk of Court shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and 

close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00785-MJS Document 9 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 3