Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01609/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01609-1/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

L.M. DANIELS, II,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendant.

1:16-cv-01609-MJS (PC)

(1) ORDER VACATING NOVEMBER 28, 

2016, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND 

(2) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 

COURT ORDER

(ECF NO. 4)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 

5.)

Pending is Plaintiff’s October 26, 2016, “Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis by a Prisoner,” which reveals that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated but is 

instead housed in “felony probation housing” near the Fresno County Jail. (ECF No. 2.)

On November 28, 2016, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause and set 

a fourteen-day deadline. (ECF No. 4.) In that Order, Plaintiff was informed that the in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, distinguishes between unincarcerated 

indigent people and incarcerated ones. (ECF No. 4.) Specifically, he was informed that 

Case 1:16-cv-01609-MJS Document 6 Filed 12/27/16 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

those who are not incarcerated may receive a full waiver of the filing fee whereas 

incarcerated people must make monthly payments until the filing fee is paid in full. Since 

the nature of Plaintiff’s “felony probation housing” is unclear, Plaintiff was ordered to 

show cause why he should not be deemed a “prisoner” within the meaning of § 1915(b). 

Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the order would result in the dismissal of 

this action without prejudice.

The deadline for responding to the Order to Show Cause has now passed, and 

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order.

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 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, 

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 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 Service, 833 F.2d 

128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (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 Court’s need 

to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy 

Case 1:16-cv-01609-MJS Document 6 Filed 12/27/16 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

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 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, neither weighs for nor against dismissal since no 

Defendant has yet to appear in this action. 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, 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. The November 28, 2016, Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 4) is VACATED; and

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within fourteen days from the date of this 

Order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01609-MJS Document 6 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 3