Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01529/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01529-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Chen
Defendant
Michael Coen
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL COEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. CHEN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01529-BAM-PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED 

AND FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER

(ECF NO. 7)

Plaintiff Michael Coen is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 

5.) On June 7, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s October 8, 2015, complaint with leave to 

amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the 

thirty days, and on July 18, 2016, an order to show cause was entered, directing Plaintiff to show 

cause, within thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and 

failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 8.) The thirty day period has passed, and Plaintiff has not 

responded to the order to show cause.

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01529-BAM Document 9 Filed 09/01/16 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

dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

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 8, 2015. Plaintiff has made no attempt to contact the Court or otherwise 

comply with the Court’s June 7, 2016, order of the July 18, 2016, order to show cause. 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 a 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 F. 2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 7, 2016, 

order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint expressly stated, “If Plaintiff fails to comply with this 

order, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a 

claim.” (ECF No. 7 at 8:14.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result 

Case 1:15-cv-01529-BAM Document 9 Filed 09/01/16 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

from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

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 claim upon which relief could 

be granted, failure to obey a court, order, and failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to close 

this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01529-BAM Document 9 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3