Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01916-3/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

FRANK BACA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01916-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. 10)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

CLERK OF COURT TO RESEND ECF NO. 

10

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 15, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended civil rights 

complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims against Does 1 through 3 in their

personal capacities for failing to treat Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C, and against Does 4 through 

18 in their official capacities for implementing a policy denying Plaintiff treatment for his 

Hepatitis C, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 10.) The Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s remaining claims for failure to state a claim. Id. 

The Court opened discovery for four months for the limited purpose of obtaining 

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 11 Filed 12/27/16 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

the documents necessary to identify all Doe defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff was directed to 

submit to the Court a list of documents necessary to identify the Doe Defendants within 

30 days of the Court’s order. (Id.) The 30 day deadline elapsed and Plaintiff failed to 

respond to the Court’s order. 

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 11 Filed 12/27/16 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

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 

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. 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. The Clerk of Court shall resend Plaintiff a copy of ECF No. 10, the Court’s 

November 15, 2016 screening order;

2. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit to 

the Court a list of documents necessary to identify the Doe Defendants, as 

set forth in the screening order, 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. 10); and

3. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or identify the necessary documents, this 

action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

the Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01916-DAD-HBK Document 11 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 3