Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01316-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON EVERETT PELLUM, SR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01316-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 7) 

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was given leave 

to file an amended pleading provided he do so by not later than November 4, 2013. (ECF 

No. 7.) The November 4, 2013 deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended 

pleading or seeking a further extension of time to do so. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure 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 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, 

Case 1:13-cv-01316-MJS Document 9 Filed 11/25/13 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

based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 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 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 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 

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 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 Defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury 

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this 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, 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.

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order. (ECF No. 7.) 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Case 1:13-cv-01316-MJS Document 9 Filed 11/25/13 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

1. Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show cause 

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

comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 7) and failure to prosecute, or file an 

amended complaint; and

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action will be 

dismissed, with prejudice, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:13-cv-01316-MJS Document 9 Filed 11/25/13 Page 3 of 3