Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06128/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen P. Spencer
Plaintiff
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Defendant
Ann M Veneman
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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney

KRISTI C. KAPETAN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Fax: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN P. SPENCER, 

 

 Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; Ann M

Veneman,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:03-cv-06128-OWW-SMS

 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF

PROSECUTION

Plaintiff, Allen P. Spencer, is proceeding pro se in this action.

On July 11, 2006, this court issued an order informing Plaintiff that on August 14, 2006,

there would be a hearing to determine whether the action should be dismissed for lack of

prosecution due to the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case since August 4, 2005. Plaintiff

was ordered to file a response by August 4, 2006 and/or appear at the hearing on August 14 to

show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The matter came on

for hearing on August 14, 2006 and plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s order or to appear at

the 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

Case 1:03-cv-06128-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 08/21/06 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

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth.,

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a th

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 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance

th

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure th

to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs th

to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9 Cir. th

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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring th

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 of July 11, 2006 stated that there would be a hearing regarding the lack of prosecution and

Case 1:03-cv-06128-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 08/21/06 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

the case may be dismissed if no appearance was made or no response to the order was received.

Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from non-compliance with the

court’s order. 

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

plaintiff's failure prosecute this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06128-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 08/21/06 Page 3 of 3