Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01434/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01434-6/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERM

PERSONNEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01434-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED

(Docs. 15 and 20)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL SHALL

COUNT AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 29, 2007, the court

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted and

ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of the

order. On June 14, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s request for a thirty-day extension of time to

file an amended complaint. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended

complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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.

Case 1:06-cv-01434-LJO -LJO Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 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

1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action, 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 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 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for

failure to 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 court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case has

been pending since October 16, 2006. 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 an 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, a court’s warning to a party that his failure

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”

requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d

at 1424. The court’s order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint warned plaintiff that

dismissal, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim would result

if he failed to comply with the court’s order. Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order. 

Case 1:06-cv-01434-LJO -LJO Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 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

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court

order and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This dismissal shall count as

a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01434-LJO -LJO Document 22 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3