Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00684-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD JUSTICE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0684 GEB PAN P

vs.

JAN SCULLY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The record in this action shows no activity since late 2004 when the United States

Marshal filed returns of service for defendants Wagg and Rall. It appears that plaintiff has not

diligently prosecuted this action.

The court possesses the discretionary authority to dismiss an action based on

plaintiff’s failure to diligently prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Unreasonable delay by plaintiff

is sufficient to justify dismissal, even in the absence of actual prejudice to the defendant, see

Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1978); Anderson v. Air

West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976), since a presumption of injury arises from the

occurrence of unreasonable delay. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated,

Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978); Anderson, 542 F.2d at 524; Alexander v. Pacific Maritime

Association, 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1009 (1971). Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00684-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 05/18/06 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

then has the burden of showing justification for the delay and in the absence of such showing the

case is properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Nealey v. Transportation Maritima

Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days from

the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to respond to this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: May 17, 2006.

\004

just0684.dlop

Case 2:04-cv-00684-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2