Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01808/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01808-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dave Davey
Defendant
Andrew Klingfus
Plaintiff

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

ANDREW KLINGFUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01808- MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE 

(ECF NO. 7)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the 

undersigned’s jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he was granted thirty days to file an amended 

complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 7.) The time for filing an amended pleading has now passed, 

and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order. 

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01808-MJS Document 8 Filed 03/25/16 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

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 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, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (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.

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 

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 while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

Case 1:15-cv-01808-MJS Document 8 Filed 03/25/16 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

paid the filing fees in this action and likely is unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause 

in writing within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order why this action should not 

be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01808-MJS Document 8 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 3