Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03268/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03268-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH DE VINCENZI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF CHICO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-03268-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

On May 4, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff Joseph De Vincenzi to show cause by 

May 10, 2016 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 77. 

May 10, 2016 has passed, and plaintiff has not filed a response to the court’s order to show cause, 

or a request for an extension of time in which to do so. The court thus dismisses this action for 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. 

It is well established that district courts have sua sponte authority to dismiss 

actions for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 

Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard applied in dismissal for 

failure to prosecute); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 

(9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 

sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the 

Case 2:11-cv-03268-KJM-EFB Document 80 Filed 05/17/16 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

court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with any court order). 

In deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or to comply with court 

orders, a district court must consider five 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 sanctions.” Omstead, 594 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 

779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)); see also In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir.1994) 

(failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (failure to comply with court orders). 

In the instant action, the first two factors—public interest in expeditious resolution 

of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. After 

diligently searching, plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to locate plaintiff since October 2015. 

ECF No. 77 at 1–2. Defendants have not been able to conduct the discovery necessary in the 

absence of plaintiff. Id. In an effort to facilitate the progress of the case, the court issued an order 

to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and requested 

plaintiff’s counsel serve the order to plaintiff’s last known address and residence of known family 

members, and counsel has done so. ECF Nos. 77, 78. Yet, as of the date of this order, plaintiff 

has not responded or requested an extension of time to respond to the court’s order. Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute and respond to the court hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward 

disposition, and suggests plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently. 

The third factor––prejudice to defendants––also weighs in favor of dismissal. A 

rebuttable presumption of prejudice to a defendant arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays 

prosecution of an action. See Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1452–53. As previously mentioned, defendants 

have been unable to conduct discovery in the absence of plaintiff. Nothing suggests such a 

presumption is unwarranted in this case. 

The fourth factor––public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits––

ordinarily weighs against dismissal. However, it is a plaintiff’s responsibility to move towards 

disposition at a reasonable pace, and avoid dilatory and evasive tactics. See Morris v. Morgan 

Case 2:11-cv-03268-KJM-EFB Document 80 Filed 05/17/16 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

Stanley, 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not discharged this responsibility despite 

having been (1) instructed as to his responsibilities, (2) granted sufficient time in which to 

discharge them, and (3) warned of the consequences of failure to do so. Under these 

circumstances, the policy favoring resolution of disputes on the merits does not outweigh 

plaintiff's failure to obey court orders or to file responsive documents within the time granted. 

The fifth factor—availability of less drastic sanctions—also weighs in favor of 

dismissal given the court’s prior efforts. The court cannot move the case toward disposition 

without plaintiff's compliance with court orders or participation in this litigation. Plaintiff has 

shown he is either unwilling or unable to comply with court orders by filing responsive 

documents or otherwise cooperating in prosecuting this action. 

Finally, while dismissal should not be entered unless a plaintiff has been notified 

that dismissal is imminent, see West Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 

1523 (9th Cir. 1990), plaintiff has previously been warned about the possibility of dismissal for 

failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders. 

Accordingly, as provided by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 16, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-03268-KJM-EFB Document 80 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3