Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01201/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01201-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen N. Danel
Plaintiff
Shaheen
Defendant

Document Text:

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

STEPHEN N. DANEL,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. SHAHEEN,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-01201-LJO-EPG-PC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY 

COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 3.) 

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

On August 6, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action, within 

forty-five days. (ECF No. 3.) The forty-five day period expired, and Plaintiff did not comply

with the order or otherwise respond to the order.

On October 8, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to file 

a response within twenty days, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order. (ECF No. 4.) The twenty day time period has 

now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Order to Show Cause. 

As discussed in the Order to Show Cause:

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to 

comply with the directives set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh 

the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic 

alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Case 1:15-cv-01201-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 

always favors dismissal,=@ id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has been pending 

since August 3, 2015. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order 

may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an 

instance, the Court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources 

assisting a litigant who will not help himself by resolving payment of the 

filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in 

favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not 

sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing 

Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently increases the risk that 

witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and 

it is Plaintiff's failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 

or pay the filing fee for this case that is causing delay. Therefore, the 

third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the 

proceedings there is little available to the Court which would constitute a 

satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Monetary sanctions of 

little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion 

of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the 

dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is 

stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with 

prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, 

this factor will always weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

(ECF No. 4 at 3-4.) Plaintiff was forewarned in the Order to Show Cause that his “failure to 

comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 2:21-22.) 

Accordingly, this case shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Based on the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

the Court’s order issued on August 6, 2015; and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01201-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2