Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738-14/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

On March 23, 2007, the court served an order on the plaintiff wherein the District Court Judge 1

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations granting summary judgment in part.

The order was returned to the court on April 9, 2007. That same day plaintiff filed a change of address.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BERNARD WIDBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAIL LEWIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

1:04-CV-6738-AWI-DLB- PC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT

ORDER

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY DUE BY

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This case is set for trial on November 6, 2007. The telephonic

trial confirmation is scheduled for October 1, 2007. On April 5, 2007, the court ordered that plaintiff

file a pretrial statement on August 20, 2007. Defendants were ordered to file a pretrial statement on 1

September 20, 2007. To date, plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order to file a pretrial

statement.

Local Rule 11-110 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 Cir.

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 68 Filed 09/19/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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

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

requiring amendment of 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal 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. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows :

1) Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause explaining the reasons why he

failed to comply with the court order by September 26, 2007; 

2) Plaintiff shall also file a pretrial statement by September 26, 2007. As part of the pretrial

statement, plaintiff shall include a list of witness that he intends to call and identify whether they are

incarcerated in accordance with the instructions included in the second scheduling order. Plaintiff is

advised that failure to file a reply or a pretrial statement may result in the dismissal of his case with

prejudice;

3) The Court of the Clerk shall serve the District Court Judge’s order filed on March 23,

2007, adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations granting summary judgment

in part (Doc. # 62) on the plaintiff at his new address at P.O. Box 4490 Lancaster CA 93539-4490

(Doc. 64); and

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 68 Filed 09/19/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

4) The Court of the Clerk shall serve the second scheduling order filed on April 5, 2007,

(Doc. 63) on the plaintiff at the same address listed above (Doc. 64).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 14, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 68 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3