Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01815/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01815-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT STRINGFELLOW,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITER, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01815 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Robert Stringfellow (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 4, 2015.1

On February 29, 2016, the Court screened his complaint and ordered him to either file an 

amended complaint, or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable 

claims. 

After thirty (30) days passed without a response, the Court issued an order to show cause 

on April 15, 2016. Plaintiff was ordered to file a response, or comply with the February 29, 2016, 

order, within thirty (30) days.

Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to follow the Court’s order or 

otherwise communicate with the Court.

///

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 18, 2016.

Case 1:15-cv-01815-DLB Document 13 Filed 06/01/16 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

DISCUSSION

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

for failure to comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (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 sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These 

factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a 

court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

In this case, two factors weigh against dismissal while three factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no 

discernible prejudice to the defendants at this early stage in the proceedings, and public policy 

always favors disposition on the merits. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-28; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 

291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92. On the other hand, the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal. This case has been 

pending since December 4, 2015, and there is no operative complaint on file. The Court’s ability 

to manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised by 

noncompliance with orders. Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory 

given that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and this action cannot proceed any further 

absent his compliance with the order. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 

642-43; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990-92. 

Plaintiff was also warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal of this action. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01815-DLB Document 13 Filed 06/01/16 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

ORDER

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED, without prejudice, for 

failure to obey the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01815-DLB Document 13 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3