Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04960/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04960-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN DUKES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

E. JONES, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-04960 SBA (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In an Order dated October 15,

2009, Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison of the Eastern District ordered it transferred to this Court

on venue grounds. 

On October 21, 2009, the instant case was received by this Court. On that same date, the

Clerk of the Court sent Plaintiff a notice that this case had been transferred to this Court. 

In an Order dated December 10, 2009, the Court directed Plaintiff to inform the Court of his

continued intent to prosecute this action. The Court informed Plaintiff that if he failed to do so

within thirty days, this action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The

Order was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address, Salinas Valley State Prison. 

On December 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court; however, he failed to inform

the Court of his continued intent to prosecute.

On January 12, 2010, the Clerk of the Court responded to Plaintiff's December 29, 2009

letter and directed Plaintiff to file a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Court's

December 10, 2009 Order because the deadline to do so had passed. The Clerk's letter was returned

on January 25, 2010, as undeliverable with a notation: "Return to Sender–Inmate Refused."

More than thirty days have passed since the Court issued its December 10, 2009 Order, and

Plaintiff has failed to communicate with the Court since his December 29, 2009 letter. A district

court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633

Case 4:09-cv-04960-SBA Document 10 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The court should also afford the litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss, id. at 133, as

this Court has done.

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Dukes4960.Diss.wpd 2

(1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). The court should consider five

factors before dismissing an action under Rule 41(b): (1) the public interest in the expeditious

resolution of the litigation: (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy favoring the

disposition of actions on their merits. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130

(9th Cir. 1987).1 The first three factors, above, weigh in favor of dismissal in light of the fact that

Plaintiff has not pursued this matter by filing a notice of his continued intent to prosecute this action,

as directed by this Court. In addition, he has previously refused documents from the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California and, more recently, he has refused the Clerk's

January 12, 2010 letter. The fourth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because less drastic

sanctions would have little impact in light of Plaintiff's apparent lack of interest in this case. 

Although the fifth factor appears to weigh against dismissal, dismissal is appropriate in light of the

other four factors. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petition with prejudice where three of the five factors

weighed in favor of dismissal). 

In light of the foregoing, this action is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Clerk of the Court shall close the file and terminate any pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/1/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04960-SBA Document 10 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Dukes4960.Diss.wpd 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN DUKES et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

E. JONES et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-04960 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Melvin Dukes D-33572

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Dated: February 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04960-SBA Document 10 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3