Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02059/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02059-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernadette Gray
Plaintiff
E. Longcor
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNADETTE GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. LONGCOR,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-02059-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE 

(Doc. 4)

Plaintiff Bernadette Gray, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 24, 2014. On January 5, 2015, 

the Court struck Plaintiff’s unsigned complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file a signed complaint 

within thirty days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131. Plaintiff was warned that if she failed to 

comply, this action would be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order. More 

than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the 

order.1 

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

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 

 

1 The order was re-served on February 6, 2015.

Case 1:14-cv-02059-LJO-SKO Document 7 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 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

2

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In 

re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotations and citations 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. Id. (citation omitted).

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the 

Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action 

can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and 

the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, this 

action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to 

prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02059-LJO-SKO Document 7 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2