Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06276/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06276-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DRAKE M. WARD, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MACK WIMBISH, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6276 REC/DLB

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS 

By Order filed on May 19, 2005, plaintiffs were directed to

file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the filing date

of the Order. Plaintiffs were specifically advised that

"[f]ailure to timely comply will result in the dismissal of this

action." As of August 4, 2005, plaintiffs have not complied with

this order.

Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for

dismissal of an by the court sua sponte "failure of the plaintiff

to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of

court." Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 434 F.2d 281, 283-

Case 1:04-cv-06276-REC-DLB Document 65 Filed 08/05/05 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

2

284 (9 Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1009 (1971). Before th

imposing dismissal as a sanction the court must weigh the

public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; the

court's need to manage its docket; the risk of prejudice to the

defendants; the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and the availability of less drastic sanctions. 

Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986). Dismissal as a

sanction should be imposed only in extreme circumstances." Id.

The relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this

action because of plaintiffs’ failure to file a Second Amended

Complaint within the time ordered by the court. The public’s

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation is not served

because, without a Second Amended Complaint, there is no pleading

before the court to which defendants can respond and no basis for

any discovery or other pretrial proceedings. The court’s docket

is very extensive and cannot be managed efficiently and

expeditiously if parties fail to comply with court orders,

especially court orders to file an amended complaint. The risk

of prejudice to defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal. As

noted, the absence of a Second Amended Complaint leaves the

defendants in limbo concerning the further prosecution of this

action and requires the expenditure of time and money to monitor

this action in order to protect their rights. Although public

policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, the absence

of a Second Amended Complaint precludes this disposition. The

Case 1:04-cv-06276-REC-DLB Document 65 Filed 08/05/05 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

3

court notes that plaintiff paid the filing fee when he commenced

this action. Therefore, the court cannot assume that plaintiff

is unable to pay a monetary sanction. However, poised against

this consideration is the fact that the court specifically

advised plaintiffs that the failure to comply with the court’s

order would result in dismissal of this action. See Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128-132-133 (9 Cir. 1987), cert. th

denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988)(warning a plaintiff that failure to

obey a court order will result in dismissal can suffice to meet

the “consideration of alternatives requirement). 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. This action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to timely comply with a

court order and to prosecute.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06276-REC-DLB Document 65 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 3