Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00419/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00419-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Billinger
Plaintiff
Church
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT BILLINGER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHURCH, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-0419 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). ECF No. 13. 

By order filed January 5, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it 

with leave to amend. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff then requested appointment of counsel, claiming that 

he had no legal education and had already done everything he knew how to in order to state a 

claim. ECF No. 22. The motion was denied because plaintiff did not show that he had tried to 

follow the court’s instructions and was unable to. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff was again given 

instructions on the type of information he needed to provide to state a claim and was also directed 

to the instructions in the court’s previous order. Id. He was given additional time, until March 9, 

2016, to file an amended complaint. Id. 

On February 2, 2016, plaintiff filed a one-page statement in which he appeared to 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 27 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 4
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

summarize his claims against defendant Church. ECF No. 24 at 1. The document stated that its 

purpose was to provide information and that it was a “response to document (petition) of the court 

request.” Id. The document did not include any request for relief and it was not clear whether 

plaintiff was attempting to supplement the original complaint or if the document was intended as 

his amended complaint. Id. Because the document was not in the proper form, did not identify 

itself as an amended complaint, or comply with the court’s instructions for an amended 

complaint, it was not considered as an amended complaint and plaintiff was reminded that he had 

until March 9, 2016, to file his first amended complaint. ECF No. 25. The Clerk of the Court 

was also instructed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint form used in this district. Id. 

Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint passed without any action by plaintiff and by 

order filed April 7, 2016, plaintiff was given a final opportunity to amend the complaint. ECF 

No. 26. Plaintiff was given an additional thirty days to file an amended complaint and was 

warned that if he did not file an amended complaint, the case would be dismissed. Id. at 2. 

Thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded 

to the order. 

 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions 

including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” 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 an 

action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule) (citing United States 

v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th 

Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 

Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the court must 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 27 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 4
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

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. 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F. 2d 

493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984); Mir v. Fosburg, 706 F.2d 916, 918 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

The court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending 

since January 2015, and since the court’s February 11, 2016 order, plaintiff has made no attempt 

to contact the court or otherwise comply with that order. The court cannot hold this case in 

abeyance awaiting such compliance by plaintiff. 

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal. The 

Ninth Circuit “has consistently held that the failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to 

justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant from the 

failure.” Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (citing Alexander v. Pac. 

Mar. Ass’n, 434 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1970); Pearson v. Dennison, 353 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1968)). 

This is because “[t]he law presumes injury from unreasonable delay.” Id. (citing States S.S. Co. 

v. Philippine Air Lines, 426 F.2d 803, 804 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

The fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly 

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 

Finally, the court has already provided plaintiff additional time to comply rather than 

dismiss the complaint and warned him that failure to file an amended complaint would result in 

dismissal of the action. ECF No. 26. The court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the “consideration of the alternatives” 

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

The court’s April 7, 2016 order giving plaintiff another opportunity to comply with the January 5, 

2016 order to file an amended complaint expressly stated that “[i]f plaintiff does not file an 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 27 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

amended complaint, this case will be dismissed.” ECF No. 26 at 2. Thus, plaintiff had adequate 

warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with the court’s order. 

Summary 

 This case is being dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff has not filed an amended 

complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110. 

DATED: May 23, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 27 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 4