Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00412-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARRINGTON HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. ORPURT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00412-BAM-PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED

AND FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER

Plaintiff Henderson is a former state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1

By order filed November 19, 2015, the March 16, 2015 complaint was dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was granted 

leave to file an amended complaint, and directed to do so within thirty days. Plaintiff has not 

filed an amended complaint. 

In the November 19, 2015, order, the Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his 

complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has 

passed, and he has not complied with the Court’s order. 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on March 26, 2015. (ECF No.4.)

Case 1:15-cv-00412-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/06/16 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

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate, . . . 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 an action, 

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 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been 

pending since March 2015. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting such 

compliance by Plaintiff. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of 

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 

prosecuting an 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, the court’s warning to a party that failure 

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” 

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

The Court’s November 19, 2015 order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint expressly 

stated, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

Case 1:15-cv-00412-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/06/16 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

will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had 

adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and more than thirty days has elapsed. The 

Court dismisses the claims made in the original complaint with prejudice for failure to state a 

federal claim upon which the Court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 

(9th Cir. 1987)(prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior 

to dismissing for failure to state a claim). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief could be granted and for failure to obey a court order. The Clerk is 

directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00412-BAM Document 9 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 3