Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00126/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00126-3/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

CRAIG SIMONSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. SINGH, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00126-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 a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 27, 

2016. (ECF No. 1.)

On March 25, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first civil rights complaint and 

granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 

dismissal. (ECF No. 9.) On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. (ECF 

No. 10.) On July 26, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and 

found it to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

Defendant T. Singh. (ECF No. 15.) The Court directed Plaintiff to either file a second 

amended complaint or a notice of willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claim 

Case 1:16-cv-00126-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 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

within thirty days. Id. The thirty days has passed and Plaintiff has done neither, nor has 

he filed a request for an extension of time.

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 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or 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, 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 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); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (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. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00126-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 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 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, as for the availability of lesser 

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

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. As Plaintiff is 

proceeding in forma pauperis, 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 file either 

an amended complaint or a notice of willingness to proceed on his 

cognizable claim, or shall 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 order (ECF No. 15); and

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint or notice of 

willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim, the undersigned will 

recommend this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00126-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 3