Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06759/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

SAMMYE A. RICHARDSON, et al., )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. )

)

RANDALL PARKER, )

)

Appellee. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6759 AWI

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF PROSECUTION

On December 27, 2004, Plaintiffs filed this bankruptcy appeal. On January 6, 2007, the

Clerk of the Court issued a minute order setting a March 5, 2007 hearing date to determine if this

action should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order stated any opposition to dismissal

was to be filed five court days prior to the hearing. No opposition was timely filed. The case was

called during the court’s afternoon calender on March 5, 2007, but no party appeared. 

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9thCir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court

must consider several factors, including: (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. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

Case 1:04-cv-06759-AWI Document 5 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

1260-61. 

At this time, the court finds dismissal of this action for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute is

appropriate. The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending for over two

years. No party has filed a document with this court since it was filed. The court cannot manage

its docket if it maintains cases in which the plaintiff has failed to litigate its case. The public’s

interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of such

cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually

proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also has little or no weight

in actions where the parties have not contacted the court in two years. The availability of less

drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that no party has not contacted the court in two

years and no party responded to the court’s January 6, 2007 order, the court has no effective

sanction but to close the case. The January 6, 2007 order informed Plaintiffs that any opposition

to dismissal must be filed by February 26, 2007 and they must appear at the March 5, 2007

hearing. Finally, the risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal because 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). 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06759-AWI Document 5 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2