Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00870/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00870-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Defendant
Guillermo Vera
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, 

 Defendant(s).

Case No. 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE 

(ECF Nos. 29 & 32)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court directed the habeas proceeding be converted

to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action and that Plaintiff proceed in forma pauperis. A 

Second Amended Complaint was filed but dismissed by the court because it failed to state 

a claim. Plaintiff was given leave to file a third amended complaint by not later than July 

28, 2014. Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension of that deadline to September 

2, 2014. 

The September 2nd deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended 

pleading or seeking an extension of time to do so. 

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 33 Filed 09/11/14 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 factors in favor of 

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 33 Filed 09/11/14 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

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 paid the filing fee for this 

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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

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

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure 

to comply with the Court’s orders (ECF Nos. 29 & 32) and failure to 

prosecute, or file an amended complaint, and

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the undersigned 

will recommend the action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a 

claim and failure to prosecute, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth 

in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 33 Filed 09/11/14 Page 3 of 3