Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01689/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01689-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAUL BALLESTEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. CRUZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01689-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY 

A COURT ORDER

(ECF NOs. 8, 9)

Plaintiff Saul Ballesteros is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

On June 8, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s November 6, 2015, complaint for failure 

to state a cognizable claim for relief and Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended 

complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was warned that if 

he failed to comply, this action would be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 8

at 8:3.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, and on July 25, 2016, an order to show 

cause was entered, directing Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days, why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to obey a Court order. More than thirty days have 

passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause.

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on December 3, 2015. (ECF No. 5.)

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 11 Filed 09/09/16 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

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 this 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 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 

court’s need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 

policy of 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, as a 

result, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute and 

failure to obey a Court order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is

dismissed for failure to prosecute and to obey a Court order. The Clerk is directed to close this 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 11 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 2