Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00705-6/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

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

E’DRICK BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETERSON,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14cv00705 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDERS 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

Plaintiff E’drick Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on May 12, 2014. Pursuant to Court 

order, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 5, 2014.1

On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to 

amend. Plaintiff requested and received numerous extensions of time within which to file an 

amended complaint, but he failed to do so.

The Court then issued an order to show cause on February 29, 2016. Plaintiff was 

ordered to file a response thirty (30) days of the date of service. 

Plaintiff has failed to file a response or otherwise communicate with the Court.

///

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May 21, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00705-DLB Document 25 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

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

for 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 Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation 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. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

In this case, while there is no discernible prejudice to the Defendants at this early stage in 

the proceedings, and public policy always favors disposition on the merits, the public’s interest 

in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal. Moreover, the Court’s ability to 

manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised by 

noncompliance with orders. This case has been pending since May 12, 2014, and Plaintiff has 

failed to file an amended complaint for over a year. Finally, there are no alternative sanctions 

which are satisfactory given that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and this action cannot 

proceed any further absent his compliance with the order. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-29; 

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990-92. The Court also notes that Plaintiff 

was also warned that dismissal would result from his failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00705-DLB Document 25 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED, without prejudice, for 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00705-DLB Document 25 Filed 04/15/16 Page 3 of 3