Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01666-3/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 

RAYMOND GEORGE GLASS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARTIN BITER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:15-cv-01666-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

(ECF NO. 10.) 

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 

(ECF No. 8.) No other parties have appeared in the action. 

On January 5, 2016, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis because he had incurred three “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g) and because he failed to meet the imminent danger exception. (ECF No. 10.) 

Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to pay the $400 filing fee in full and was warned 

that if he failed to pay, all pending motions will be terminated and the action dismissed 

without prejudice. Twenty-one days have now passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the 

filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

Case 1:15-cv-01666-MJS Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 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 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 

these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 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] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, 

they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” 

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, 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, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of a 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 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 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 [C]ourt’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. 

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

this action. See 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01666-MJS Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 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 

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the 

availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available 

which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court 

resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, 

making monetary sanctions of little use. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall either 

show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice 

for failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 10), or he shall pay 

the $400 filing fee in full; and 

2. If Plaintiff fails to so respond to this Order to Show Cause, the 

undersigned shall dismiss this action, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 2, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-01666-MJS Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 3