Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00022/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00022-8/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

HON LAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-22-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 28)

Plaintiff Hon Lau, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 6, 2009. Plaintiff has consented to a magistrate

judge handling all matters in this case. (ECF No. 5.)

On May 7, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a

claim. (ECF No. 24.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days. On June 15, 2010, after more than thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to file

an amended complaint, the Court ordered him to show cause by August 18, 2010 as to

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff

was warned that failure to file a response to the order and/or file an amended complaint

would result in dismissal of the action. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended

complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s show cause order. 

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 County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to

Case 1:09-cv-00022-MJS Document 29 Filed 08/25/10 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

dismiss an action for failure to comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(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) Products Liability Litigation, 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).

The Court previously found that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 24.) Despite being given ample time, Plaintiff has

failed to amend his claims. This action can proceed no further without Plaintiff filing an

amended complaint, and the Court cannot allow the case to simply remain idle on its

docket. The Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to

prosecute. 

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and

failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00022-MJS Document 29 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2