Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00852/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00852-1/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

JAIME L. ZEPEDA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 15)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 11, 2015, the Court found Plaintiff had stated a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Bryant and Reed, but 

dismissed his remaining claims without prejudice. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was given

thirty days to file an amended complaint or to notify the court that he would proceed on 

his sole cognizable claim. The thirty-day deadline passed without Plaintiff filing an 

amended pleading or a notification of his willingness to proceed, or seeking an 

extension of time to do either.

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

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS Document 16 Filed 07/01/15 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

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” In re 

Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 

Thompson v. Hous. 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, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Edwards v. Marin Park, 

Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of a 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); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 

1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 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. In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1226; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

this action. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). 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, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, 

Case 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS Document 16 Filed 07/01/15 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

at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a 

satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall either 

show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice 

for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders (ECF 

No. 15), or file an amended complaint; and

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the 

undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, 

for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS Document 16 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 3