Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01948-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MARIO GUERRERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRYON BLEUM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-10948-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Luis Mario Guerrero (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 20, 2014.

1

 On 

January 21, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file a 

second amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The deadline was February 

23, 2015, and Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise responded to the order.

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 the action. Bautista v. Los 

Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for 

 

1

Plaintiff identified himself alternatively as Luis Mario Guerrero, Luis Mario Guerrero Angulo, and Luis Mario 

Angulo Vaes.

2 On February 20, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. A notation on the 

envelope indicates Plaintiff has been discharged on parole. However, Plaintiff has not notified the Court of any 

change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).

Case 1:14-cv-01948-SKO Document 14 Filed 02/25/15 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

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 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 order, this action 

shall be dismissed. Id. 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. Id. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to 

prosecute, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01948-SKO Document 14 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 2