Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00187-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC GREENE, CASE NO. CV-F-07-0187 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

vs. FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE

K. KABLER, et al., [Doc. 5]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

April 26, 2007, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court found plaintiff ineligible to proceed in forma

pauperis and ordered plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty days. Plaintiff was

warned that the failure to obey the court’s order would result in dismissal of this action, without

prejudice. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded

to the court’s order. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “a 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 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may th

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., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance

th

with Local Rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to th

comply with court order). 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

Case 1:07-cv-00187-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 10/16/07 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

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. In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 433 (9 Cir. 1996); Ghazali, th

46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61.

Weighing the relevant factors, the court finds dismissal for lack of prosecution appropriate. The

public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket

weigh in favor of dismissal because this case has been pending for seven months without screening or

service. Plaintiff has filed no document with the court since February 21, 2007, despite the court’s order

to pay the filing fee on April 26, 2007. The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in

which parties do not take any action in their case. 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 litigants are actually proceeding. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence

of an unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9

th

Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, looking to the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,

has little or no weight in actions where the parties lack enough of an interest to respond to the court’s

orders. Finally, the fifth factor, requiring the court to consider other sanctions, has little weight in this

case. A court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders will result in dismissal satisfies

the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. The April 26, 2007 order

warned that failure to comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this action. Thus, Plaintiff

had adequate warning that dismissal was possible. In addition, the court has no less drastic sanction

than dismissal in an action such as this one where the Plaintiff refuses to litigate his case and respond

to court orders.

Accordingly, this is action is hereby dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to

obey the court’s order to pay the $350.00 filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00187-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 2