Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01429-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. PUTNAM, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:16-cv-1429- MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 

COURT ORDER

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil 

rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, 

and Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) That 

thirty day period has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 

otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

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, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 

Case 1:16-cv-01429-DAD-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/03/17 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

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 Defendants, neither weighs for nor against dismissal since no 

Defendant has yet to appear in this action. 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 Plaintiff shall show cause in writing 

within fourteen days from the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed 

Case 1:16-cv-01429-DAD-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/03/17 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

for failure to comply with a court order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit an amended 

complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01429-DAD-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 3