Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02096/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02096-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William H. Garrison
Plaintiff
Margaret Mims
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

WILLIAM H. GARRISON, II,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-CV-02096 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

Plaintiff William H. Garrison, II, (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on December 27, 2013. Plaintiff consented to the 

jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on February 5, 2014.

On December 2, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days 

to file a First Amended Complaint. Over thirty (30) days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to 

comply or otherwise respond to the Court's order.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and 

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have the inherent 

power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 

Case 1:13-cv-02096-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/16/15 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

829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party s 

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 

See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with 

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 

rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must 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 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 

46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, 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. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 

Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 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, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order 

will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. 

Case 1:13-cv-02096-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/16/15 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

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s 

order expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this 

order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.” Thus, Plaintiff 

had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 

order.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. 

This terminates this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02096-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 3