Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01159/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01159-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Asofa V. Tafilele
Plaintiff
H. Tyson
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASOFA V. TAFILELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. TYSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

1:09-cv-01159 DLB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM

DISMISSAL SHALL COUNT AS A STRIKE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

On November 13, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint for failure to

state a claim, with leave to amend within thirty (30) days. The thirty (30)-day period has now

expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded 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 829, 831 (9th

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-01159-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/07/10 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

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. 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 comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-01159-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/07/10 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

failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim." Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning

that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that this action be dismissed based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of November 13, 2009 and failure to state a claim. This

dismissal will count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:09-cv-01159-DLB Document 10 Filed 01/07/10 Page 3 of 3