Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00312-7/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

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

LEWIS PERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00312-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND (2) DENYING PENDING 

MOTION AS MOOT

(Docs. 41 and 42)

Plaintiff Lewis Perry (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant 

Nguyen (“Defendant”) for violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution 

with respect to medical care. 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on May 11, 2015. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the motion and on June 22, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring 

Plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion within 

twenty-one days. Local Rule 230(l). More than twenty-one days have passed, and Plaintiff has 

not complied with or otherwise responded to the order. 

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 sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Case 1:12-cv-00312-AWI-SKO Document 43 Filed 07/23/15 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

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). 

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,” 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted), and Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is incumbent 

upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants,” 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Court 

is constrained to find that the prejudice factor weighs against dismissal because the mere pendency 

of an action does not constitute prejudice; and public policy favors disposition on the merits, 

which weighs against dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43.

Nevertheless, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1228-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. A monetary sanction has little to no benefit in a 

case in which the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court is left with no alternative but to 

dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action, which has been pending since 2012, 

requires Plaintiff’s cooperation in its prosecution, the action cannot simply remain idle on the 

Court’s docket, and the Court is not in a position to expend its scant resources resolving an 

unopposed motion in light of Plaintiff’s demonstrated disinterest in continuing the litigation. Id. 

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute;

and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41) is DENIED as moot. In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1226; Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00312-AWI-SKO Document 43 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2