Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jesse Camarena v. Dr. John Diep

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 4, 2012

JESSE CAMARENA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. JOHN DIEP, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Doc. 29 / RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS

On January 6, 2010, Jesee Camarena ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On July 20, 2011, the Court issued an order dismissing certain claims and defendants and finding a cognizable claim against Defendant Diep ("Defendant") for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical need. Doc. 13.

On September 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Doc. 29. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 230(l).

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). "In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to 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.'" Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order. Failure to timely comply or otherwise respond will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20121004

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.