Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05543/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05543-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CSATF/PHARMACY MANAGER,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5543 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILING

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE CASE 

 Timothy Buford (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 27, 2005, the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations to

revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis status and ordered him to pay the $150.00 filing fee within

thirty days. The Court further ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice if Plaintiff

failed to pay the filing fee. Over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has made no contact with

the Court regarding the payment of the filing fee nor has he paid the filing fee. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that a “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Case 1:04-cv-05543-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 11/09/05 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

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 Ain 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. 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, 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. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856

F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 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, as

Plaintiff has made no attempt to resolve the fee issue or has made contact with the Court since

June 2004. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting compliance by

Plaintiff. 

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 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of

dismissal discussed herein. Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s

order will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d 1424. The

Court’s order issued July 27, 2005, expressly forewarned Plaintiff of a dismissal in the event of

Case 1:04-cv-05543-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 11/09/05 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

his noncompliance. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his

noncompliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the Court Order and pay the filing fee following the revocation of his

in forma pauperis status. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action in accordance with this

Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05543-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 11/09/05 Page 3 of 3