Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01402-12/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff John Anthony Vella, a former state prisoner proceeding pro, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 27, 2012. This case is set for jury trial on October 25, 

2016, on Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Dr. 

Edgar Clark and M. Gray. 

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before June 24, 2016, but he failed to file one, and 

he has not filed a response to the order to show cause filed on August 8, 2016.

II.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

On February 23, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring Plaintiff to file a pretrial 

statement on or before June 24, 2016. Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the 

JOHN ANTHONY VELLA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

EDGAR CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATES, 

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE

[Docs. 59, 61)

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 62 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 4
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

order, and on August 8, 2016, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause within ten days why this action 

should not be dismissed. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond to the order would result in 

dismissal of this action, with prejudice. More than ten days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a 

response to the order. 

The failure to obey a scheduling order is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(f)(1)(C). The second scheduling order contained notice to Plaintiff that the failure to file a 

pretrial statement in compliance with the order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including 

dismissal. (Doc. 59.) Further, in the order to show cause, the Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to 

respond to the order would result in dismissal. (Doc. 61.)

A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties 

are required to exercise due diligence, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 

1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609), and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to 

file a pretrial statement and failure to respond to the order to show cause warrant the imposition of 

sanctions. 

III.

DISMISSAL AS A SANCTION

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to 

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (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. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do 

and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 

(citation omitted).

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 62 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 4
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

This case has been pending since 2012, and it is set for jury trial in approximately two months. 

The expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of 

dismissal. Id. at 1227. This action has been pending for almost four years, and Plaintiff had ample 

time to begin trial preparation and comply with the scheduling order. Id. The Court has an extremely 

heavy caseload, and when litigants disregard orders of the court and deadlines, the Court’s ability to 

manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised. Id.

As for the risk of prejudice, while the mere pendency of an action does not constitute 

prejudice, the impairment of Defendants’ ability to proceed to trial is prejudicial. Id. at 1227-28 

(quotation marks omitted). 

Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore 

weighs against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the 

case. Id. at 1228. 

Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction has 

little to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. In addition, 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner and in his last communication with the Court, he represented he was 

without a permanent address or reliable mode of transportation. (Doc. 57.) 

Discovery is closed and the deadline for filing pretrial motions has passed, rendering 

unavailable the Court’s ability to impose any limitations on Plaintiff in those areas as a sanction. 

Lastly, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not an available sanction given that Plaintiff failed to 

identify any exhibits or provide a witness list via a pretrial statement. See Local Rule 281(b)(10),(11). 

In conclusion, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted given the procedural posture of this 

case, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pretrial scheduling order, and the unavailability of 

satisfactory alternative sanctions. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29. 

IV.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The telephonic trial confirmation hearing set for August 31, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. and jury 

trial set for October 25, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. are VACATED;

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 62 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial 

statement in compliance with the scheduling order; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01402-LJO-SAB Document 62 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 4