Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00154/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00154-6/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

ROBERT WILT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. GREENLEAF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00154-BAM-PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF NO. 13)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Robert Wilt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1

On February 2, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended, complaint with leave 

to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file an 

amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, this action would be dismissed for 

failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. (Id. at 7:6.) On April. 4, 2016, Plaintiff 

was granted a thirty day extension of time. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended 

complaint has passed, and he has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

Local Rule110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on February 6, 2015. (ECF No. 5.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 19 Filed 05/31/16 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

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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. 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. This action has been 

pending since January 29, 2015. Plaintiff has made no attempt to contact the Court or otherwise 

comply with the Court’s February 2, 2016, order. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance 

awaiting such compliance by Plaintiff. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, 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, a court’s warning to a 

party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 

the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 

779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s February 2, 2016, order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his 

complaint expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with 

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 19 Filed 05/31/16 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

this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a 

claim.” (ECF No. 13 at 7:6.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result 

from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, within

fourteen (14) days of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 2, 2016, order, for failure to state a claim, 

and for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 19 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 3