Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01175/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01175-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

ISMAEL LOPEZ-RANGEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL COPENHAVER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01175 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Ismael Lopez-Rangel (“Plaintiff”), a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on July 28, 2014, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for 

violation of civil rights by federal actors.1

On January 22, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 2, 2015. 

The action was subsequently dismissed without prejudice on December 9, 2015, after 

Plaintiff was released and deported, but failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address. 

Plaintiff, who now resides in Mexico, filed a notice of change of address on January 21, 2016. The 

Court reopened this action on January 26, 2016.

///

 

1

 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on August 13, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 18 Filed 04/27/16 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

On January 29, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and dismissed 

it with leave to amend. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. 

The Court noted that this would be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to cure the deficiencies.

At this time, almost three months have passed since the Court’s January 29, 2016, order, and 

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the Court. 

DISCUSSION

“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 

required to 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 sanctions.” 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 

accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Phenylpropanolamine 

(PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). 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. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted). 

The expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in 

favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. Further, an opposing party is necessarily prejudiced by the aging of 

a case left to idle indefinitely as a result of the plaintiff’s disinterest in either moving forward or 

taking action to dismiss the case. Id.

With respect to the fourth factor, “public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits 

strongly counsels against dismissal,” but “this factor lends little support to a party whose 

responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 

progress in that direction.” Id. at 1228.

Finally, this case has now been pending since June 28, 2014, and there is no operative 

complaint on file. The Court has been lenient with Plaintiff in reopening this action and affording 

him numerous opportunities to prosecute this action. Additionally, given that Plaintiff resides in 

Mexico, the Court gave Plaintiff sufficient time past the thirty (30) day deadline prior to taking 

action. Plaintiff was warned that dismissal would result if he did not file an amended complaint. 

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 18 Filed 04/27/16 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

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this action, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s 

failure to follow the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute.

This terminates this action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 18 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 3