Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00168/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00168-0/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

GORDON MEADOR,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER

DR. TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-0168-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On February 7, 2005, plaintiff Gordon Meador (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In this motion, plaintiff, who is presently

incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, contended that he needs surgery,

a proper diet, and a transfer to Pleasant Valley State Prison, which has a Central Treatment

Center. 

On February 18, 2005, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 

The court explained that because the court does not have a complaint before it, it has no power to

issue an injunction. In addition, the court determined that even assuming plaintiff would set

forth the same contentions in a complaint, plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating a fair

chance of success on the merits of an Eighth Amendment Claim. The court informed Plaintiff

that this action may not proceed without a complaint on file. The court then gave Plaintiff the

Case 1:05-cv-00168-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/02/05 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

opportunity to file a complaint within thirty days. In addition, the court informed Plaintiff that

this action could not proceed unless plaintiff either pays the $250.00 filing fee in full or files an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court ordered Plaintiff within thirty (30) days to

either: (a) file a complaint and pay the filing fee in full or file an application to proceed in forma

pauperis; or (b) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. The court warned Plaintiff that failure to

comply with this order would result in the closure of this file.

Over thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed a complaint or otherwise notified

the court on how he wishes to proceed in this action.

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In

determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order

the court must consider several factors, including: (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. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik,

963 F.2d at 1260-61.

No complaint is currently on file in this action, and this case cannot proceed with a

complaint on file. The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in which a plaintiff

fails to keep an operative complaint on file by filing a complaint. The public’s interest in the

expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the

court’s limited resources may be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. 

Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also has little or no weight in actions

where the plaintiff lacks enough of an interest to file a complaint. The public and the court have

no interest in determining the truth or falsity of the allegations that plaintiff might raise in an a

complaint if Plaintiff never files a complaint. The risk of prejudice to defendant also weighs in

favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable

delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Case 1:05-cv-00168-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/02/05 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

The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that no complaint is on

file, the court has no effective sanction but to close the case. The court expressly warned

plaintiff that to file an amended complaint would result in this action’s dismissal. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without

prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of February 18, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00168-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 3