Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01703-2/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

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

LYNN DELL ROSS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

B. WOODWARD, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01703-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

COURT ORDER

(Doc. 6.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE 

CASE

I. BACKGROUND

Lynn Dell Ross (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On October 30, 2013, Plaintiff 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no 

other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 4.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of 

the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local 

Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

On November 14, 2013, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s unsigned 

application to proceed in forma pauperis and requiring Plaintiff to file a new, signed application

within thirty days. (Doc. 6.) The thirty-day deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not 

filed a new application or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

Case 1:13-cv-01703-GSA Document 7 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 3
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

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 

action has been pending since October 2013. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order 

may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot 

continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 

returning the court’s form pursuant to the court’s orders. Thus, both the first and second factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 

increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 

is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third 

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not paid the 

filing fee for this action and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, making monetary sanctions of 

little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or 

witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is 

without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of 

dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Case 1:13-cv-01703-GSA Document 7 Filed 12/30/13 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to obey 

the Court=s order of November 14, 2013; and

2. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:13-cv-01703-GSA Document 7 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 3