Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01277/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01277-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno County Jail
Defendant
LaTonia Jones
Plaintiff

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

LATONIA JONES, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-01277-EPG (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE CASE

LaTonia Jones (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on August 20, 2015. (ECF No. 1). On October 7, 2016, the Court screened the 

Complaint. (ECF No. 7). The Court found that the Complaint failed to state a claim. (Id.). 

Additionally, the Court warned Plaintiff that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 

within 30 days, the Court will dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and failure to comply 

with a court order.” (Id. at p. 8). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the 30 

day period, and has still not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 

the case.

“In determining whether to dismiss a[n] [action] for failure to prosecute or failure to 

comply with a court order, the 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01277-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 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

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)).

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)). While it has 

only been approximately sixty days since Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint, 

the case has been pending since August of 2015, and there is no operative complaint in this 

case.

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

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (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 amended complaint that is causing 

delay. The case is over a year old and there is no operative complaint. The case is now stalled 

until Plaintiff files an amended complaint. 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 are of 

little use, considering Plaintiff’s incarceration and in forma pauperis status, and given the stage 

of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. While dismissal 

is a harsh sanction, Plaintiff’s complaint has already been dismissed (with leave to amend) for 

failure to state a claim and there is no operative complaint.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. '

1915(e) based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

Case 1:15-cv-01277-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 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

granted under § 19831and for failure to comply with a Court order; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

See ECF No. 7.

Case 1:15-cv-01277-EPG Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 3