Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01674/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01674-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TINSLEY FAGAN, 

Plaintiff,

 

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et. al,

Defendants. 

______________________________/

1:08-CV-1674-DLB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(ECF NOS. 24, 27)

On January 12, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and

ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff failed to respond. On

May 17, 2010, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause within thirty (30) days

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s January 12, 2010 Order. 

The thirty (30)-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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 . . . dismissal of a case.” 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); 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

-1-

Case 1:08-cv-01674-DLB Document 29 Filed 07/30/10 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

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal

for failure to comply with 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 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. The third

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 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, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s May 17, 2010 Order

expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to show cause, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to

obey a court order.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of May 17, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-01674-DLB Document 29 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2