Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00909-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

HAROLD TATE, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-00909-OWW-NEW(DLB)-PC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

Plaintiff, Antonio Luis Williams ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 9, 2007, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's

application to proceed in forma pauperis and requiring plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this

action in full within thirty days. The thirty (30) day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not paid

the filing fee or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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 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

Case 1:07-cv-00909-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 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 2

(9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to 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 defendants, 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: “If plaintiff fails to pay the $350.00 filing fee in

full within thirty days, this action will be dismissed, without prejudice." Thus, plaintiff had adequate

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to

obey the court’s order of July 9, 2007;

2. Any and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in accordance with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00909-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 2