Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01316-4/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

JASON EVERETT PELLUM, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01316-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 

COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 9) 

DISMISSAL COUNTS AS A STRIKE 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a 

claim, but Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended pleading provided he do so by not 

later than November 4, 2013. (ECF No. 7.) The November 4, 2013 deadline passed without 

Plaintiff either filing an amended pleading or seeking a further extension of time to do so.

The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or show cause by not 

later than December 30, 2013, why the action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 9.) The 

December 30th deadline passed without Plaintiff responding further.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure 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.” District courts have the inherent 

Case 1:13-cv-01316-MJS Document 10 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 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

2

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, 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 a 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 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 

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 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 public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and

the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk 

of prejudice to Defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury 

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this 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, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage 

in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a satisfactory lesser 

sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this 

Case 1:13-cv-01316-MJS Document 10 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 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

3

action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions of little use.

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s orders. (ECF Nos. 7 & 9.) 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, said dismissal to count as a 

strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Silva v. Di Vittorio 658 F.3d 1090 (9th 

Cir. 2011), and 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate any and all pending motions and 

CLOSE the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

ci4d6

Case 1:13-cv-01316-MJS Document 10 Filed 01/02/14 Page 3 of 3