Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00801/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00801-3/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

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 David Townsel is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States 

Magistrate Judge on May 29, 2015. Local Rule 302.

On September 25, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim 

under section 1983 and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). After more than thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to file an 

amended complaint, on November 9, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause within twenty 

days why the action should not be dismissed. 

More than twenty days have since passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise 

responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims 

upon which relief may be granted. 

DAVID TOWNSEL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00801-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF 

MAY BE GRANTED

[ECF Nos. 6, 7]

Case 1:15-cv-00801-SAB Document 8 Filed 12/11/15 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

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure 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.” 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). 

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 to file an 

amended 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. United 

States Postal Serv., 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 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).

In this instance the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the Court’s 

need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 

complaint within thirty days of September 25, 2015, and order to show cause within twenty days of 

November 9, 2015. Plaintiff has been provided with the legal standards that would apply to his claims 

and the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint 

nor otherwise responded to the Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the 

Court hinders the Court’s ability to move this action towards disposition, and indicates that Plaintiff 

Case 1:15-cv-00801-SAB Document 8 Filed 12/11/15 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

does not intend to diligently litigate this action.

Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a 

rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-

53 (9th Cir. 1994). This risk of prejudice may be rebutted if Plaintiff offers an excuse for the delay. 

In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1453. The risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is greatly outweighed by the factors 

in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. 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. In this instance, the fourth 

factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 

833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s September 25, 2015, order requiring 

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in 

compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.” 

(ECF No. 6 at 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 

noncompliance with the Court’s order and his failure to state a claim.

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with 

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00801-SAB Document 8 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 3