Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01947/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01947-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed what was construed as a civil rights Complaint pursuant 

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which 

provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) In addition to 

failing to set forth any intelligible claim for relief, the Complaint was unsigned.

On December 11, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s Complaint to be stricken from the record 

for its lack of a signature and Plaintiff to file a signed complaint within thirty days from service of the 

order. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff was informed that failure to comply with the order would result in 

dismissal of the action. (Id.) This deadline has passed without a response from Plaintiff.

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 

GUSTAVO V. RUBIO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SIX UNKNOWN AGENTS OR MR 

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01947-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION

(ECF No. 2)

CLERK SHALL CLOSE CASE

Case 1:13-cv-01947-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 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

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 an action, 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 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 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 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 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. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, 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 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated: “The failure 

to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had 

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:13-cv-01947-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 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

1. Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED; and

2. Clerk shall CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01947-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/03/14 Page 3 of 3