Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00887-4/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

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

PAUL A. MARTINEZ, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

JAIL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00887-EPG (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDERS

(ECF NO. 13)

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Paul Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on June 11, 2015. (ECF No. 1). On October 3, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 

Complaint for failure to state a claim, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

within 30 days from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 12). The Court also notified 

Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the order would result in 

dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a court order. (Id. at 

p. 8). 

The time period expired, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly,

the Court issued an order to show cause, directing Plaintiff to show cause why the case should 

 

1 On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. ' 636(c) (ECF No. 4), and no other parties have made an appearance. Therefore, pursuant to Appendix 

A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix 

A(k)(3).

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/13/17 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

not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with a court order. (ECF 

No. 13). That order was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff was given until February 6, 2017, 

to file a notice of change of address.

Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause and failed to update his address. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to comply 

with court orders (Plaintiff failed to respond to the screening order (ECF No. 12) and the order 

to show cause (ECF No. 13)).

2

 

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to 

comply with a court order, the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.=@ 

Id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)). It has been 

over four months since Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint, the case has been 

pending since June of 2015, and there is no operative complaint in this case. Accordingly, this 

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citing Yourish v. California 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999)). However, Adelay inherently increases the risk 

that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id. at 643, and it is 

Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint that is causing delay. The case is over a year

and a half old and there is no operative complaint. The case is now stalled until Plaintiff files 

an amended complaint. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 

 

2 Additionally, Plaintiff failed to keep the Court informed of his current address, which is

another reason this case could be dismissed. (ECF No. 3, p. 5; Local Rule 182(f)).

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/13/17 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

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions are of 

little use, considering Plaintiff’s incarceration and in forma pauperis status, and given the stage 

of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. While dismissal 

is a harsh sanction, Plaintiff’s complaint has already been dismissed for failure to state a claim 

and there is no operative complaint.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor weighs

against dismissal. Id. at 643.

After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) this action is

DISMISSED based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted under § 1983, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court 

orders;

2. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015); and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2017 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 14 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 3