Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01037/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01037-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Delano
Defendant
Delano Police Department
Defendant
Griggs
Defendant
Francisco Lopez-Martinez
Plaintiff
Benjamin Rutledge
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO LOPEZ-MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:05-cv-1037 TAG

 

Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 

vs. TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 

(Doc. 33)

CITY OF DELANO, et al., 

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT 

Defendants. TO DEFENDANTS

 /

On August 10, 2005, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed the complaint in this action, alleging

civil rights violations. (Doc. 1). On February 17, 2006, this Court issued a Scheduling Order setting

deadlines for discovery, motion dates, and settlement conference, pretrial conference, and trial dates.

(Doc. 23). On January 1, 2007, this Court issued a written order granting the motion of Plaintiff’s

counsel to withdraw from representing Plaintiff in this action. (Doc. 27). By minute order dated

January 17, 2007, this Court set a Status Conference for February 22, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.. (Doc. 28). 

Plaintiff failed to appear at the Status Conference. At the Status Conference, the Court set a Further

Status Conference for March 9, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., ordered that Plaintiff appear at the Further

Status Conference, and warned that failure to appear would result in sanctions, including dismissal

of the case. (Doc. 32). The Court issued an order on March 2, 2007, rescheduling the status

conference for March 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. and, again, warning Plaintiff that his failure to appear

personally could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action. (Doc. 33). The March 2,

2007 order further scheduled a show cause hearing on March 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., instructing

Plaintiff to appear and explain why the case should not be dismissed, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110,

Case 1:05-cv-01037-TAG Document 35 Filed 04/17/07 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

for his failure to comply with the Court’s orders and to prosecute the action. (Id.). Finally, the order

directed the parties to submit, in writing, on or before March 22, 2007, reasons why the case should

not be dismissed. (Id.). Plaintiff did not submit a written explanation nor did he appear at the March

26, 2007, status conference and show cause hearing.

Local Rule 11-110 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 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 rules); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

orders); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order, 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. 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

Case 1:05-cv-01037-TAG Document 35 Filed 04/17/07 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

61 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order of

March 2, 2007, repeatedly warned Plaintiff that sanctions, including dismissal of the case, may be

imposed if the Plaintiff failed to comply with its orders. (Doc. 33). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

Court’s March 2, 2007, order; and

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment against Plaintiff and for Defendants, City of

Delano, Delano Police Department, Benjamin Rutledge, and Chief Griggs, and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01037-TAG Document 35 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 3