Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00960-2/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

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

L.M. DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-00960-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM AND FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER

(ECF Nos. 7, 8)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL SHALL 

COUNT AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g)

I. Background

Plaintiff L.M. Daniels (“Plaintiff”), is a former Fresno County inmate proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He initiated this 

action on June 25, 2015. On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. 

(ECF No. 4.)

On June 27, 2016, the Court issued a screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for 

failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) The screening order set forth the multiple deficiencies with 

the complaint, including that it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8, 

failed to link several named defendants to any alleged constitutional violation, and did not allege 

sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim for the failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, or for any violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Case 1:15-cv-00960-BAM Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

(Id. at pp. 3-6.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days 

of service of that order. (Id. at p. 7.) Thus, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due on or before 

August 1, 2016. Plaintiff was also expressly warned that failure to comply with that order would 

result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to obey a 

court order. (Id.). 

As of August 1, 2016, Plaintiff did not file any amended complaint. Accordingly, on 

August 9, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed, 

with prejudice. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was again warned that the failure to show good cause 

would result in the case being dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 8.) 

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause was due on or before September 1, 2016. 

However, as of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither complied with the Court’s previous 

orders, nor otherwise communicated with the Court. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now two 

months overdue.

II. Discussion

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 

Case 1:15-cv-00960-BAM Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

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). 

Here, the action has been pending for over a year, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint is 

two months overdue. Despite multiple attempts to communicate with Plaintiff, he has been nonresponsive to the Court’s orders. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if a party ceases 

litigating the case. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

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). Because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits, the fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan v. 

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party 

whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct 

impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228.

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 June 27, 2016 order 

expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that order would result in dismissal of 

this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to obey a court order. (ECF No. 7, p. 

7.) The warning was reiterated in the Court’s August 9, 2016 order to show cause. (ECF No. 8.) 

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 

Also, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court which would 

constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary 

expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, 

making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to 

have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

In summary, Plaintiff filed this action but is no longer prosecuting it. The Court cannot 

afford to expend resources resolving unopposed dispositive motions in a case which Plaintiff is 

no longer prosecuting. 

Case 1:15-cv-00960-BAM Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with 

prejudice, for failure to state a claim;

2. This action is also HEREBY DISMISSED for the failure to obey the court’s June 

27, 2016 order (ECF No. 7), and August 9, 2016 order (ECF No. 8);

3. This dismissal SHALL count as a strike against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g); and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE all pending motions and 

CLOSE this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00960-BAM Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 4 of 4