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.

Jenkins v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 13, 2015

MARVIN JENKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF NO. 1)

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Plaintiff initially was a plaintiff in Webb v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 1:14-cv-01528-MJS (PC). On November 17, 2014, the Court severed Plaintiff's claims and ordered the Clerk's Office to open the instant action for Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff was ordered to submit his own complaint within thirty days, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or the applicable filing fee within forty-five days. (ECF No. 1.) These deadlines passed without Plaintiff filing his pleading or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paying the applicable filing fee, or seeking an extension of time to do so.

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... dismissal of a case." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 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 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 either show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's orders (ECF No. 1), or submit his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or the applicable filing fee in full, and
2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause, file his complaint, file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the applicable filing fee, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.