Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00320-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Young Yil Jo
Plaintiff
Six Unknown Agents or Mr President of the United States Barack Obama
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUNG YIL JO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIX UNKNOWN AGENTS or MR 

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES BARACK OBAMA, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO FILE 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a federal detainee proceeding pro se in this purported civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 13, 2014, the Court struck Plaintiff’s complaint because it was 

unsigned, and noted, also, that the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF 

No. 2.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a signed complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff 

simultaneously was ordered to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the 

$400 filing fee for this action. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in 

dismissal of the action. (Id.)

Plaintiff appealed. (ECF Nos. 3 & 5.) His appeals were not processed by the Ninth 

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Circuit Court of Appeals, and a search of the Ninth Circuit’s docket does not reveal any 

pending appeal by Plaintiff relating to the instant action. Presumably, Plaintiff’s appeal 

was not processed because of the Ninth Circuit’s May 13, 2014 order enjoining Plaintiff 

from filing further civil actions naming the same defendants and/or raising the same 

allegations as those in actions previously filed and dismissed in the district courts, and 

directing this court to reject any related notices of appeal. See In re: Young Yil Jo, No. 

13-80149 (9th Cir. May 13, 2014).

The action has been pending for over a year without any operative complaint and 

without Plaintiff submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the 

applicable filing fee.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or 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 “in the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or 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, 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 a 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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 public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

this 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, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint or show cause as to why this action should not be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order 

(ECF No. 2);

2. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff also shall either 

file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the $400 filing fee in 

full, or show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 2); and

3. If Plaintiff fails to show cause, file an amended complaint, file an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $400 filing fee in full,

the undersigned will recommend that the action be dismissed without 

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. prejudice for failure to obey a court order and failure to pay the applicable 

filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 05/15/15 Page 4 of 4