Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00485/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00485-2/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

JUSTIN GIBSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHUA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00485-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(Doc. 7) 

Plaintiff, Justin Gibson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 27, 2015.1 Plaintiff consented to 

United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes in this action. (Doc. 4.) The Court is 

required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 

an officer or employee of a governmental entity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

On December 30, 2015, an order issued dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend for 

failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 7.) The order was served on 

Plaintiff the same date and gave him thirty days to file a first amended complaint, noting that his 

failure to do so would result in an order dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to state a 

claim. (Id.) Four months have now passed since the order issued and Plaintiff has failed to file 

an amended complaint or to respond in any way to the December 30, 2015 order. 

 

1

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Stanislaus County Jail in Modesto, California when he filed 

suit. It is unclear if he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner at the time of the events at 

issue. 

Case 1:15-cv-00485-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 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

Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel, or of a party to comply with these 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 (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); 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 failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules, 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 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 1260-61; Ghazali, 

46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously resolving 

litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 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 -- 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00485-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 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

dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 

1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court's order which dismissed 

the Complaint expressly stated that Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within thirty 

days of the date of service would result in an order dismissing the action. (Doc. 7.) Thus, 

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 

Court's order.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court's order of December 30, 2015, and for Plaintiff’s failure to 

state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. §983. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this case 

and to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00485-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 3