Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00396/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00396-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

~ 12 

t::•-

::~ E oc.B 13 

U:.::: 

..... ~ 

.~ u 14 1-<t.,..; 

-~ 0 

Qt) 15 r.n ·c (!) ..... 

..... Ul 

.... ~ ·-Cl 16 

~ E (!) (!) 17 .-:::: ...c:: c t:: 

;:J 0 

z 18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FILED 

JUN 17 2016 

SUSAN Y. SOONG 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDRE DANGERFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEPUTY NEU, et al., 

Defendants. 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

Case No. 15-cv-0396-LHK (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding prose, filed a civil rights complaint under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 12,2016, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment 

for failure to exhaust. In that same order, the court noted that plaintiff had not communicated with 

the court since October 15,2015, and had not filed an opposition to defendants' motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff had previously been reminded by both the court and defense counsel 

of plaintiff's obligation to keep the court and all parties apprised of plaintiff's current address. 

The court also had reminded plaintiff that it was plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. In 

light ofplaintiff's lack of communication with the court, the court ordered plaintiffto file a notice 

of intent to prosecute within twenty days or face dismissal. More than twenty days have passed, 

and plaintiff has not responded. 

Case No. 15-cv-0396-LHK (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 5:15-cv-00396-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

c:<:l 12 

t:: ..... ::s E oc.B 13 

U:.::: 

..... c:<:l 

-~ u 14 .......... 

-~ 0 

Clt> 15 en •t: 

Q) ..... ..... <ll c:<:l ..... 

~Cl 16 

"'l:j E 

Q) Q) 

.~ 17 ...s::: s::t:: 

;:J 0 

z 18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with 

a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b). See Link v. Wabash R.R., 3 70 

U.S. 626, 633 (1962). The court should consider five factors before dismissing an action under 

Rule 41(b): (1) the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the litigation: (2) the court's 

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the availability ofless 

drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits. See 

Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F .2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal in light of the amount of time that has 

passed - approximately eight months -without plaintiff filing any pleading in this case, or 

otherwise communicating with the court. The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal 

because plaintiff, having the burden to provide an excuse for his delay or failure to prosecute, has 

failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice. See Nealey v. Transportation Maritima Mexicana, 

S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1980) ("delay alone should not be deemed to create a 

presumption of prejudice, save in the sense that if the plaintiff proffers no pleading or presents no 

proof on the issue of (reasonableness), the defendant wins.") (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In addition, courts generally find prejudice to the opponent if a party disregards deadlines and the 

court's orders and warnings without justification. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. The fourth factor 

also weighs in favor of dismissal because the court explicitly warned plaintiff of the possibility of 

dismissal if he failed to prosecute, or comply with court orders. See id. at 132-33 (recognizing 

that case law suggests that warning a plaintiff that the failure to obey a court order will result in 

dismissal can satisfy the requirement that the court to consider less drastic alternatives to 

dismissal). With four out of five factors weighing in favor of dismissal, the court finds that 

dismissal is appropriate. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding 

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petition with prejudice where three of the 

five factors weighed in favor of dismissal). 

In light of the foregoing, this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to 

prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk of the court shall close the 

file and terminate any pending motions. 

Case No. 15-cv-0396-LHK (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

2 

Case 5:15-cv-00396-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

2 Dated: to jut> /20 t L 

3 

4 LUCYH. H 

United States District Judge 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

~ 12 

t: ..... :::~ E o<B 13 U·-........ ...... ~ 

.~ u 14 t:c....,. 

.~ 0 

ou ..... 15 Cll 1-< (!) ...... ...... Cll ~ ..... 16 lZio 

"'0 E (!) (!) 17 .-:::: ...c: 

c: t: 

~z 18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 3 

Case No. 15-cv-0396-LHK (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 5:15-cv-00396-LHK Document 36 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 3