Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00477/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00477-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Dilley
Defendant
Guadalupe Guerrero
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUADALUPE GUERRERO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ROBERT DILLEY, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0477 AWI NEW (TAG) 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF PROSECUTION

On April 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed this tort action. On July 28, 2005, Plaintiff was

directed to file a dismissal of this case in light of settlement. While Plaintiff attempted to file a

request for dismissal, this notice was never properly signed. On January 6, 2007, the Clerk of the

Court issued a minute order setting a March 5, 2007 hearing date to determine if this action

should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The order stated any opposition to dismissal was to

be filed five court days prior to the hearing. No opposition was timely filed. The case was called

during the court’s afternoon calender on March 5, 2007, but no party appeared. 

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9thCir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution the court

must consider several factors, including: (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)

Case 1:05-cv-00477-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

drastic alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

1260-61. 

At this time, the court finds dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is

appropriate. The public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending for over a year

and a half. Plaintiff has neither served Defendant nor filed a document with this court in over a

year. Plaintiff has indicated to the court that this action has been resolved by settlement. The

court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in which the plaintiff has failed to litigate

Plaintiff’s case. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in

favor of dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent on cases in

which the litigant is actually proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits also has little or no weight in actions where the parties have not contacted the court in a

year. The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that no party has

not contacted the court in over a year and no party responded to the court’s January 6, 2007

order, the court has no effective sanction but to close the case. In addition, it appears that

Plaintiff in fact wants this action dismissed. The January 6, 2007 order informed Plaintiff that

any opposition to dismissal must be filed by February 26, 2007 and he must appear at the March

5, 2007 hearing. Finally, the risk of prejudice to Defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal

because 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). 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00477-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2