Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02031/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02031-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Billinger
Plaintiff
Yates
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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT BILLINGER

Plaintiff,

v.

YATES,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-02031-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM, AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 30)

Plaintiff Albert Billinger (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, initiated this action on October 22, 

2014. (ECF No.1.) On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate 

Judge. (ECF No. 16.)

On June 25, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty 

days. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff was also granted several extensions of time to amend his complaint. 

(ECF Nos. 34, 36.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has passed, and he 

has not complied with the Court’s order. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 37 Filed 09/18/15 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

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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 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 (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 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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. This action has been pending 

since October 2014. Plaintiff has made no attempt to contact the Court or otherwise comply with 

the Court’s June 25, 2015 order. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting such 

compliance by Plaintiff. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, 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 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 

factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to 

obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” 

requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

The Court’s June 25, 2015 order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint expressly stated, 

“Plaintiff is notified that his failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this 

action.” (ECF No. 30, p. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from 

his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 37 Filed 09/18/15 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

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), this action 

is HEREBY DISMISSED based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may 

be granted, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. All pending motions, if any, are 

terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 37 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3