Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01843/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01843-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUSTAQ KAHN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRAUENHIEM, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01843 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Mustaq Ali Kahn (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 9, 2015.

On February 29, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with 

leave to amend. After receiving extensions of time, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due on or 

before May 22, 2016. 

After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise contact the Court, the 

Court issued an order to show cause on June 13, 2016. Plaintiff was ordered to file a response, or 

an amended complaint, within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff 

has failed to do so.

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 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

2

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

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 sanctions.” In 

re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotations and citations 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. Id. (citation omitted).

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s orders, the 

Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action 

can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the orders at issue, 

and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. Moreover, 

Plaintiff was warned numerous times that failure to comply with the Court’s orders would result 

in dismissal of this action.

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to obey a 

court order and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2