Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00649-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA RUSSWORM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

YATES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-00649-AWI-NEW-P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

(Doc. 23) 

Dana Russworm (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 20, 2006, the District Court adopted Findings and

Recommendations issued December 15, 2005, in part and instead,

dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was to file

an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of that order. On January 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

motion to extend time. On February 15, 2007, the Court granted

Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days within which to comply. 

The thirty-day period has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to

comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order(s).

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 27 Filed 04/30/07 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

2

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 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, th

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. th

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

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for th

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for th

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 for failure to comply with th

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

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 27 Filed 04/30/07 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

3

1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, 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 th

factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of

dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party

that 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. The Court’s order of November 20, 2006,

expressly stated: “Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint

in compliance with this order will result in this action’s

dismissal.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

would result from non-compliance with the court’s order(s). 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY DISMISSES this action based on

Plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of November 20, 2006. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00649-AWI-LJO Document 27 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3