Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01800/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01800-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH, CASE NO. CV F 06-1800 LJO GSA

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

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

pauperis in this action. On December 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a document which this Court construes

as a complaint (“complaint”) to attempt to allege that defendants A.K. Scribner and Apple Computer

(collectively “defendants”) violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The complaint makes vague

references that plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer but fails to attribute a source of

plaintiff’s suffering. The complaint also appears to refer to constitutional violations.

This Court issued its January 17, 2007 order (“January 17 order”) to dismiss the complaint on

grounds that it: (1) fails to satisfy pleading requirements and to allege a cognizable claim; (2) fails to

plead grounds for this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants; and (3) appears intended

to vex defendants. The January 17 order granted plaintiff up to February 20, 2007 to file an amended

complaint and admonished plaintiff that “failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with

this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order.”

Case 1:06-cv-01800-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 12/10/07 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

(Bold in original.) Plaintiff received no less than five extensions to file his amended complaint, the last

of which was up to July 15, 2007. Plaintiff has filed no amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

Failure To Comply With Orders

Plaintiff failed to comply with the January 17 order and five extension orders to file timely an

amended complaint. This Court’s 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 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.

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

or 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 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order or to comply with

local rules or for lack of prosecution, a 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 defendant; (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 1260-1261; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In this case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and

the Court’sinterest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as plaintiff has not advanced this

action with his inexplicable failure to file timely an amended complaint. The third factor – risk of

prejudice to defendant – also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the

Case 1:06-cv-01800-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 12/10/07 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

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, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d

at 1424. The January 17 order admonished plaintiff that “failure to file an amended complaint in

compliance with his order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey

a court order.” Thus, plaintiff received adequate warning that dismissal would result from

noncompliance with this Court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. Quite simply, plaintiff has

failed to comply with this Court’s order and to respond meaningfully and intelligently to it.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, this Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that plaintiff has

failed to: (1) file a complaint to satisfy F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and to state a cognizable claim which does not

appear intended to vex; and (2) comply with this Court’s orders, to respond meaningfully and

intelligently to the orders, and to prosecute this action. This Court DIRECTS the clerk to close this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01800-LJO-GSA Document 16 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 3