Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00753/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00753-1/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

WAYNE KAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. PENNYWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00753 SAB-PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO 

OBEY A COURT ORDER

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c).

1

 

On January 5, 2016, an order was entered, finding that the complaint stated a claim for 

relief directing Plaintiff to complete and return to the Court USM 285 forms for service of 

process on Defendants. Plaintiff was directed to do so within thirty days. Plaintiff was 

specifically cautioned that his failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff 

has not filed a response, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los 

Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge on September 5, 2014. (ECF No. 5.)

Case 1:14-cv-00753-SAB Document 12 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 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

2

the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation; (2) the 

Court’s need to manage its own 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 

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 

2006)(internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to 

do, and are not conditions that met be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation 

omitted).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed 

for failure to prosecute and to obey a Court order. Plaintiff’s response is due within thirty days 

of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order to show cause will 

result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00753-SAB Document 12 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 2