Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01811/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01811-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL JOSEPH LANGE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

 )

 SGT. BEER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:07 cv 01811 GSA (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(1).

On June 17, 2010, an order was entered, directing plaintiff to complete and submit to the

Court forms for service of process. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the

order could result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff has not returned the forms to the Court,

nor has Plaintiff filed any other response to the order of June 17, 2010. 

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

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

Case 1:07-cv-01811-GSA Document 19 Filed 08/03/10 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

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 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. th

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

th

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. th

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 (9 Cir. 1987)(dismissal th

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

1986)(dismissal for failure to 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on th

their 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 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, within thirty

2

Case 1:07-cv-01811-GSA Document 19 Filed 08/03/10 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

days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's

failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff’s failure to respond will result in dismissal of this action

without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01811-GSA Document 19 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3