Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06493/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06493-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF JENNIFER LYNN LE )

 BLANC, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF LINDSAY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6493 AWI DLB

ORDER DISCHARGING MINUTE

ORDER CONCERNING DISMISSAL

FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

ORDER VACATING MARCH 5, 2007

HEARING DATE

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On November 1, 2004, this action was removed to this court. On February 6, 2007, the

Clerk of the Court issued a minute order setting a hearing in this action to determine if it should

be dismissed for lack of prosecution. On February 6, 2007, the court received a letter brief from

Plaintiff’s attorney. The letter brief states that Defendants removed several actions to this court

involving Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorney states that this action is duplicative of another action,

case number CV F 04-5971.

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court must

consider several factors, including: (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

Case 1:04-cv-06493-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 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 2

alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61. th

At this time, the court finds dismissal appropriate. It appears that this action was opened

in error and is duplicative of another action. The court’s interest in maintaining its docket and

the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weigh against in favor of

dismissing this action. The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is satisfied

because this action is being litigated in another case, CV F 04-5971. Dismissal is a drastic

sanction, but is being entered here on Plaintiff’s request.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The January 6, 2007 minute order concerning dismissal for lack of

prosecution is DISCHARGED;

2. The March 4, 2007 hearing is VACATED and no party or claimant need

appear at that time; and

3. This action is DISMISSED as duplicative. The Clerk of the Court shall

close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06493-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2