Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01783-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Scott Arcelus
Plaintiff
Margaret Mimms
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SCOTT ARCELUS, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MARGARET MIMMS,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-01783-EPG-PC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER

(ECF No. 4.) 

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Michael Scott Arcelus (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on November 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) 

On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF 

No. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 

On December 5, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to submit a nonprisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action, 

within thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) The thirty-day time period expired, and Plaintiff failed to 

comply with the Court‟s order or otherwise respond to the order.

Case 1:15-cv-01783-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

On February 8, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause, requiring Plaintiff to 

respond within thirty days showing cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his

failure to comply with the Court‟s order of December 5, 2015. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was 

forewarned in the order to show cause that his failure to respond as required would result in the 

dismissal of this case. (Id. at 3 ¶2.) The thirty-day time period has expired, and Plaintiff has 

not filed a response to the order to show cause or otherwise respond to the order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

“„The public‟s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,‟”

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 

action has been pending since November 30, 2015. Plaintiff‟s failure to respond to the Court‟s 

order may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court 

cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 

resolving the payment of the filing fee for his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently 

increases the risk that witnesses‟ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and 

it is Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court‟s order that is causing delay. Therefore, the third 

factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff has not paid the 

filing fee for this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of 

Case 1:15-cv-01783-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 3
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

these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch 

as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short 

of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to 

obey the Court=s order of December 4, 2015; and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01783-EPG Document 8 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 3