Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01783-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MARGARET MIMMS,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-01783-EPG-PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT 

ORDER

(ECF No. 4.) 

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in 

this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. 

(ECF No. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern 

District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until 

such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

On December 4, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action, within 

forty-five days. (ECF No. 4.) The forty-five day time period has now expired, and Plaintiff 

has not submitted an application, paid the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court's 

order.

Case 1:15-cv-01783-EPG Document 7 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 3
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

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 

action has been pending since November 30, 2015. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's 

order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court 

cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 

resolving the payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 

increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 

is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court’s order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third 

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, 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 has not paid the 

filing fee for this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of 

these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch 

as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short 

of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

///

Case 1:15-cv-01783-EPG Document 7 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to file 

a written response to this order, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of December 4, 2015; and

2. Plaintiff’s failure to file a response as required by this order shall result in the 

dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01783-EPG Document 7 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 3