Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01213/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01213-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ROSAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01213-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S PENDING MOTIONS AS 

MOOT

(Docs. 27, 28, and 35)

Plaintiff Richard Rosas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 22, 2011. This action 

is proceeding against Defendant Dileo (“Defendant”) for denial of adequate medical care, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on December 15, 2014, and on January 

26, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a response. Local Rule 230(l). 

Plaintiff was subsequently granted three extensions of time to file his response, and the most 

recent extension of time expired on June 1, 2015.

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 

Case 1:11-cv-01213-LJO-SKO Document 36 Filed 06/22/15 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

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) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). 

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,” 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted), and Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is incumbent 

upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants,” 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Court 

is constrained to find that the prejudice factor weighs against dismissal because the mere pendency 

of an action does not constitute prejudice; and public policy favors disposition on the merits, 

which weighs against dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43.

Nevertheless, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1228-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. A monetary sanction has little to no benefit in a 

case in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with the Court’s order, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for 

failure to prosecute. Id. This action, which has been pending since 2011, requires Plaintiff’s 

cooperation in its prosecution, the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, and the 

Court is not in a position to expend its scant resources resolving an unopposed motion in light of 

Plaintiff’s demonstrated disinterest in continuing the litigation. Id. Plaintiff has had more than six 

months within which to file his response to Defendant’s motion, a period of time which was more 

than adequate and lenient. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01213-LJO-SKO Document 36 Filed 06/22/15 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

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute; 

and Defendant’s pending motions are denied as moot. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226; Local Rule 

110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01213-LJO-SKO Document 36 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 3