Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01596/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01596-7/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

Plaintiff Jesse Adame is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jesse Adame, a former state prisoner proceeding pro, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2014. This case is set for jury trial on November 1, 

2016, on Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force against Defendants Vallejo and Mariscal. 

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before August 25, 2016, but he failed to file one, 

and he has not filed a response to the order to show cause filed on September 6, 2016.

///

///

///

JESSE ADAME,

 Plaintiff,

v.

F. MARISCAL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01596-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATES, 

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE

[ECF Nos. 29, 33)

Case 1:14-cv-01596-SAB Document 36 Filed 09/21/16 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

II.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

On May 13, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring Plaintiff to file a pretrial 

statement on or before August 12, 2016. Plaintiff failed to file a pretrial statement; therefore, on 

August 18, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement on or before August 25, 

2016. Plaintiff failed to file a pretrial statement, and failed to appear for the telephonic pretrial 

conference held on September 2, 2016. Thus, on September 6, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

show cause within fourteen days why the action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute the action. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond to the order 

would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice. More than fourteen days have passed and 

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order. 

The failure to obey a scheduling order is grounds for the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(f)(1)(C). The Court’s order to show cause warned Plaintiff that the failure to respond to the 

order would result in dismissal. (ECF No. 33.)

A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties 

are required to exercise due diligence, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 

1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609), and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to 

file a pretrial statement and failure to respond to the order to show cause warrant the imposition of 

sanctions. 

III.

DISMISSAL AS A SANCTION

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles 

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to 

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (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 1:14-cv-01596-SAB Document 36 Filed 09/21/16 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

sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do 

and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 

(citation omitted).

This case has been pending since 2014, and it is set for jury trial in less than two months. The 

expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of 

dismissal. Id. at 1227. This action has been pending for almost two years, and Plaintiff had ample 

time to begin trial preparation and comply with the scheduling order. Id. The Court has an extremely 

heavy caseload, and when litigants disregard orders of the court and deadlines, the Court’s ability to 

manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised. Id.

As for the risk of prejudice, while the mere pendency of an action does not constitute 

prejudice, the impairment of Defendants’ ability to proceed to trial is prejudicial. Id. at 1227-28 

(quotation marks omitted). 

Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore 

weighs against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the 

case. Id. at 1228. 

Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction has 

little to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. In addition, 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner and ceased communication with the Court and defense counsel. 

(ECF No. 33.) 

Discovery is closed and the deadline for filing pretrial motions has passed, rendering 

unavailable the Court’s ability to impose any limitations on Plaintiff in those areas as a sanction. 

Lastly, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not an available sanction given that Plaintiff failed to 

identify any exhibits or provide a witness list via a pretrial statement. See Local Rule 281(b)(10),(11). 

In conclusion, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted given the procedural posture of this 

case, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pretrial scheduling order, and the unavailability of 

satisfactory alternative sanctions. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29. 

Case 1:14-cv-01596-SAB Document 36 Filed 09/21/16 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

IV.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The telephonic motions in limine hearing set for October 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. and 

jury trial set for November 1, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. are VACATED;

2. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial 

statement in compliance with the scheduling order; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01596-SAB Document 36 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 4