Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05679/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05679-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

$11,918.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, )

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-5679 AWI SMS

ORDER DISCHARGING MINUTE

ORDER CONCERNING DISMISSAL

FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 12,

2007 HEARING DATE

On May 23, 2003, the United States of America filed this action for the forfeiture of

$11,918.00 in United States Currency. On April 15, 2004, Augustina Arroyo filed a claim of

ownership concerning the currency at issue. On February 19, 2005, and again on May 9, 2006, 

the United States’ attorney was changed. 

On January 5, 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 January 31, 2007, the

United States filed an opposition to the dismissal of this action. 

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 1:03-cv-05679-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 02/09/07 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 is not appropriate. The United States presents

evidence that the delay in prosecuting this case is partly due to the reasonable time it took to

educate potential claimants, the United States’ lengthy attempts to settle this action, and the

changeover in attorneys representing the United States. More importantly, the current attorney

representing the United States has informed the court that she is now ready to proceed with this

action and could file a dispositive motion within thirty days. The court’s interest in maintaining

its docket and the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weigh against

dismissal because the United States is currently able and willing to fully litigate this action. 

Public policy also favors disposition of cases on their merits. Dismissal is a drastic sanction,

and there are other tools available to the court to ensure that it will be timely litigated. Finally,

the risk of prejudice to any clamant is minimal because only one claimant has filed a claim and

this claimant can no longer be found by the court or the United States. Thus, this action will not

be dismissed for lack of prosecution at this time.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The January 5, 2007 minute order concerning dismissal for lack of

prosecution is DISCHARGED;

2. The February 12, 2006 hearing is VACATED and no party or claimant

need appear at that time; and

3. Within fifteen days of this order’s date of service, the United States is

ORDERED to contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Sandra M.

Snyder to arrange for a scheduling conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05679-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2