Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00609/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00609-3/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

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

JULIAN ANTHONY GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00609-DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Julian Anthony Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 

March 2, 2015, and it was transferred to this Court on April 15, 2015.1

On December 1, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be 

dismissed for failure to follow the Court’s October 5, 2015, order to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff was ordered to file a response, or an amended complaint, within thirty (30) days. Over 

thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a response or otherwise communicated with the 

Court.

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 

 

1

 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May 7, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00609-DLB Document 19 Filed 01/13/16 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

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).

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Further, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is 

incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of 

litigants . . . .” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

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

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case 

has been pending since March 2, 2015, and there is no operative complaint. The third factor, risk of 

prejudice to the 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 dismissal satisfies the 

“consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Both the Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint and the order to show cause warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order may 

result in dismissal. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 

noncompliance with the Court’s orders. 

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00609-DLB Document 19 Filed 01/13/16 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to 

obey a Court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00609-DLB Document 19 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3