Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00810/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00810-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DAVID TOWNSEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNY SCHOETTLER, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-0810-MJS

 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 (ECF NO. 5.)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. On November 5, 

2015, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he was granted 

thirty days to file an amended pleading. (ECF No. 5.) That thirty-day period has now 

passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or 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 

inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or 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, failure to obey a court order, or failure 

Case 1:15-cv-00810---MJS Document 6 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 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

2

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-

63 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a 

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 apprised of address); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (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 [C]ourt’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.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

this action. See 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, as for the availability of 

lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would 

constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. 

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making 

monetary sanctions of little use.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall either show 

Case 1:15-cv-00810---MJS Document 6 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 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

3

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for 

failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 5), or he shall file his 

amended complaint; and

2. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause, the undersigned 

shall dismiss this action, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00810---MJS Document 6 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 3