Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01235/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01235-5/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

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 

Plaintiff Manuel A. Blanco is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 5, 27.) 

On March 11, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for evidentiary sanctions and/or dismissal of the 

action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to compel. 

(ECF No. 26.) On March 14, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days to 

Defendants’ motion for evidentiary sanctions and/or dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 28.) The thirty 

day time frame has expired and Plaintiff did not file a response or otherwise communicate 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 Cnty., 

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh 

MANUEL A. BLANCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DAN RICABLANCA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01235-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH 

A COURT ORDER, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 26] 

Case 1:13-cv-01235-SAB Document 29 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

“(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) 

Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations 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. Id. (citation omitted). 

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court 

is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can proceed 

no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot 

simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. The Court’s March 14, 2016, order 

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

action for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. (ECF No. 28.) Accordingly, this action 

is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 27, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:13-cv-01235-SAB Document 29 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2