Tony Adland Burwell v. Board of Prison Terms et al, No. 2:2008cv03560 - Document 10 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Judge Christina A. Snyder. IT IS SO ORDRED dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute is warranted. (db) Modified on 11/7/2008 (db).

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 TONY BURWELL, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 J. MARRON, 16 17 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 08-3560-CAS (MLG) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 18 19 This is a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 Angeles County Jail in Castaic, Californa. He filed this pro se civil 22 rights action on June 4, 2008. On June 10, 2008, the Court dismissed 23 the complaint with leave to amend. On June 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed 24 a first amended complaint naming Parole Officer J. Marron as the sole 25 defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Marron violated his rights by 26 failing to hold a timely parole revocation hearing. 27 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Los On June 24, 2008, the Court directed that the United States 28 Marshal effect service upon Marron. On the same date, copies of the 1 complaint and summons were sent to Plaintiff in order for him to 2 complete the necessary paperwork and forward the packet to the United 3 States Marshal for service. Plaintiff never forwarded the documents 4 to the Marshal s service for processing or service. 5 This action shall be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The 6 Court has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious 7 disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. 8 Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court is required to weigh 10 the following factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for 11 lack of prosecution: (1) the public s interest in expeditious 12 resolution of litigation; (2) the court s need to manage its docket; 13 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 14 favoring disposition of cases on their 15 availability of less drastic sanctions. 16 1261; merits; and (5) the Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260, In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing 17 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423); see also In re PPA Products Liability 18 Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 19 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 20 Here, the public s interest in the expeditious resolution of 21 litigation and the court s interest in managing its docket weighs in 22 favor of dismissal. Given Plaintiff s failure to comply with the 23 court s order, dismissal would not undermine 24 favoring disposition of cases on the merits. the public policy In addition, there is 25 no identifiable risk of prejudice to Defendants. Finally, four months 26 have elapsed without Plaintiff having forwarded the necessary papers 27 for service of process. He has failed to request an extention of time 28 to forward the documents or demonstrate good cause for failing to 2 1 perform this ministerial act. 2 Balancing all of these factors, dismissal of this action without 3 prejudice for failure to prosecute is warranted. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: November 6, 2008 7 8 9 Christina A. Snyder United States District Judge 10 11 Presented By: 12 13 Marc L. Goldman 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.