Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00391/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00391-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Eric Paris
Plaintiff
Ikwinder Singh
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

PAUL ERIC PARIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

IKWINDER SINGH,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00391-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 31)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Singh on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care. 

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On September 9, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF 

No. 30.) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. On October 24, 2016, the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one days. (ECF 

No. 31.) The twenty-one day deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an opposition 

or statement of non-opposition, or seeking an extension of time to do so. 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 32 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or 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 . . . 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 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 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 a 

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 a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for 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 public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

this 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 32 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 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

3

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in this action and likely 

is unable to pay, making monetary sanctions of little use. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either 

a. show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 31) 

and failure to prosecute, or 

b. file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment;

2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will dismiss the 

action with prejudice for failure to obey a court order and failure to 

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 32 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 3