Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01135/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01135-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

JACQLYN A. MARCUM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOSEPH COREY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-01135-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

 On October 18, 2019, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within fourteen 

days why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute as to remaining defendants 

Joseph Corey, Citibank and Salvador Ramirez. ECF No. 9. As of this order, plaintiff has failed 

to comply with the court’s show cause order and defendants Corey, Citibank and Ramirez have 

not been served or appeared in this action. 

 Under Local Rule 110, where counsel or a party fail to comply with a court order, 

the court is authorized to impose “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. R. 110. “It is within the inherent power of the court to 

sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 

1984) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)). However, before doing so the 

court must consider the “need to manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious resolution 

of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the policy favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. 

Case 2:19-cv-01135-KJM-DB Document 11 Filed 01/15/20 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 

 Each of these factors favor sua sponte dismissal.1 The Eastern District of 

California has one of the most impacted trial calendars in the nation; both the court and public 

suffer when cases unnecessarily congest the court’s docket through unreasonable delay. This 

case was initiated in Sacramento Superior Court on March 22, 2017 and removed to this court on 

June 20, 2019. Plaintiff has failed to serve or engage defendants Corey, Citibank and Ramirez in 

anyway and has failed to show otherwise despite opportunity to do so. Moreover, although these 

defendants have yet to be served, unreasonable delay is inherently prejudicial to defendants’ 

ability to effectively defend their position. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 

2002). Finally, because the court has already provided plaintiff the opportunity to show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, ECF No. 9, less dramatic 

sanctions are unavailable. 

 For these reasons the court exercises its inherent authority and orders this action 

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution as to remaining defendants Corey, 

Citibank and Ramirez. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 14, 2020. 

 

1

 Although the court is not required to articulate its consideration of these factors, Ash, 739 F.2d 

at 496, it does so here for clarity of record. 

Case 2:19-cv-01135-KJM-DB Document 11 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2