Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00914/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00914-2/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

FERNANDO R. DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

METTS, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00914-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Plaintiff Fernando R. Diaz, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action on June 17, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) He has consented to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) No other parties have appeared.

On May 18, 2016, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to 

state a claim. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint within 

thirty days. Id. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file an amended complaint would result in 

dismissal, with prejudice, of his case. Id.

On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a thirty-day extension of time to 

file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) That motion was granted. (ECF No. 8.) On July 

11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time. (ECF No. 9.) That motion

was also granted and Plaintiff was given anotherl thirty days to file a first amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Over thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to file a first amended 

complaint, request an extension of time, or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

Case 1:15-cv-00914-MJS Document 13 Filed 09/23/16 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

Accordingly, on August 31, 2016, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show 

cause within fourteen days why his action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a 

Court order. (ECF No. 11.) Over fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has again failed to 

comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

District courts have the inherent 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 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 Defendants, 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00914-MJS Document 13 Filed 09/23/16 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

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 proceeds in forma pauperis and 

is therefore most likely indigent, making monetary sanctions of little use.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to 

obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. 

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

the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00914-MJS Document 13 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 3