Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01358/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01358-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Health Services, Inc.
Defendant
Kitt Samuel
Plaintiff
Wasco Medical Center
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KITT SAMUEL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. )

d/b/a/ WASCO MEDICAL CENTER, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-1358 AWI TAG

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT

ORDER

This is a civil action concerning disability discrimination. On October 10, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation that recommended the court deny

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 29, 2007, the court adopted the

Report and Recommendation and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days. Well

over thirty days has passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or otherwise contacted the

court. 

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 (9th

Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey

a court order 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) 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 (9 Cir. th

Case 1:06-cv-01358-AWI -TAG Document 8 Filed 08/28/07 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

1995); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61.

At this time, the court will dismiss this action. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and

this case cannot proceed until the filing fee is paid. The court cannot manage its docket if it

maintains cases in which a plaintiff fails to follow court orders and take necessary steps to

proceed with an action. 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 plaintiff lacks enough of an interest

to pay the filing fee or contact the court in over six months. The availability of less drastic

sanctions has been considered, but given that Plaintiff has cut off all contact with the court, the

court has no effective sanction but to close the case. The court expressly warned Plaintiff that

failure to pay the filing fee within thirty days may result in this action’s dismissal. 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. See Anderson v. Air

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). th

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. This action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with a court order and lack of

prosecution; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01358-AWI -TAG Document 8 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2