Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01464-3/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

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

CALVIN M. SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01464-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 9, 10)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL SHALL 

COUNT AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g)

I. Background

Plaintiff Calvin M. Simpson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 

action on September 28, 2015. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. 

(ECF No. 5).

On August 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend 

within thirty days after service. Plaintiff was expressly warned that if he failed to file an 

amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, this action would be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 9). 

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and did not comply with or otherwise 

respond to the Court’s order. Accordingly, on October 7, 2016, the Court issued an order for 

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 11 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of service, why this action should not be 

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s August 16, 2016 order, and for 

his failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 10). 

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause was due on or before October 24, 2016. 

However, as of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither complied with the Court’s previous 

orders, nor otherwise communicated with the Court. 

II. Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, the action has been pending for over a year, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint is 

overdue. Despite multiple attempts to communicate with Plaintiff, he has been non-responsive 

to the Court’s orders. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating 

his case. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 11 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 4
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

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, 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 usually weighs 

against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 

291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 

responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 

progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 16, 2016 order 

expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that order would result in dismissal of 

this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to obey a court order. (ECF No. 9, p. 

9). Plaintiff also was warned of the potential for dismissal by the Court’s October 7, 2016 order 

to show cause. (ECF No. 10). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result 

from his noncompliance. 

Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court which 

would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this 

action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is 

likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with 

prejudice, for failure to state a claim;

2. This action is also HEREBY DISMISSED for the failure to obey the Court’s 

August 16, 2016 order (ECF No. 9), and October 7, 2016 order (ECF No. 10) and for Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute this action;

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 11 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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. This dismissal SHALL count as a strike against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g); and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01464-BAM Document 11 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 4