Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04551/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04551-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL SANTELLANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER TROY JOHNSEN,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 13-4551 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment and referred this case to Magistrate Judge Vadas for

settlement proceedings. On March 31, 2015 and April 28, 2015, Plaintiff failed to appear to

two scheduled settlement proceedings. As a result, Judge Vadas removed this case from his

calendar, and returned it to the undersigned judge. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to

communicate with the court, and failure to appear, on May 4, 2015, the court ordered

Plaintiff to file a notice of intent to prosecute within twenty-one days or face dismissal. 

Plaintiff has not responded.

A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply

with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash

R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962). The court should consider five factors before dismissing an

action under Rule 41(b): (1) the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the litigation:

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the

availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy favoring the disposition of

Case 3:13-cv-04551-NC Document 41 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

actions on their merits. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

1987). The first three factors, above, weigh in favor of dismissal in light of the amount of

time that has passed – over one year – without Plaintiff filing anything in this matter, and

also taking into consideration his failure to respond to the court’s previous order and failure

to appear at two settlement proceedings. The fourth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal

because less drastic sanctions would have little impact in light of Plaintiff’s apparent lack of

interest in this case. Although the fifth factor appears to weigh against dismissal, the court

finds that dismissal is appropriate in light of the other four factors. See Pagtalunan v.

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing petition with prejudice where three of the five factors weighed in favor of

dismissal). 

In light of the foregoing, this action is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk of the court shall close the file

and terminate any pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04551-NC Document 41 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2