-MLG Eugene E. Moore v. Garcia et al, No. 2:2010cv08451 - Document 7 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Stephen V. Wilson, DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. (rla)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
j ] l " 1 1 o 2 FILED 3 4 APR 282011 5 6 CLEAK, u.s. DISTRICT CQUAT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFO IA SOUTHERN DIVISION T SA ANA DEPUl.:Y __ 8Y 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 Case No. CV 10-8451-SVW (MLG) 12 EUGENE E. MOORE, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 DEPUTY GARCIA, et al., 16 Defendant. 17 This is a pro Be civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 18 19 U. S . C. 20 State Prison in Folsom, California. He filed this pro se civil rights 21 action 22 directed that the United States Marshal effect service upon all named 23 defendants. 24 summonses were sent to Plaintiff with instructions, in order for him 25 to complete the necessary paperwork and forward the packets to the 26 United 27 forwarded the documents to the United States Marshal for service. 28 // ยง 1983. on Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Folsom November 16, On November States Marshal 2010. 19, for On 2010, service November 22, copies of of 2010, the process. the Court complaints Plaintiff and never 1 On February 25, 2011, the Court issued an order directing 2 Plaintiff to show cause in writing, on or before March 18, 2011, why 3 the action should not be dismissed for failure to take the necessary 4 steps to effect service. Plaintiff did not respond to the order to 5 show cause. 6 This action shall be dismissed for failure to prosecute. has 7 Court 8 plaintiff's failure to diligently prosecute or comply with a court 9 order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Local Rule 12.1. See Link v. Wabash R.R. 10 Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-630 (1962). "Dismissal is a harsh penalty and 11 is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances." Henderson v. Duncan, 12 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). 13 the following factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for 14 lack 15 resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; 16 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 17 favoring 18 availability of less drastic sanctions." 19 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th 20 Cir. 1994) 21 Here, of the inherent power prosecution: disposition II (1) of the cases to dismiss The an action based on a The Court is required to weigh public's interest on their in expeditious (4} the pUblic policy merits; and (5) the Omstead v. Dell, Inc, 594 (citing Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423). the public',s interest in the expeditious resolution of 22 litigation and the court's interest in managing its docket weighs in 23 favor of dismissal. Given Plaintiff's failure to comply with the 24 court's 25 dismissal would not undermine the pUblic policy favoring disposition 26 of cases on the merits. 27 of prejudice to Defendants. Finally, four months have elapsed without 28 Plaintiff service having order or respond to the order to show cause, In addition, there is no identifiable risk forwarded the necessary papers 2 for service of j j I 1 process. 2 the documents or demonstrate good cause for failing to perform this 3 ; ministerial act. 4 5 6 He has failed to request an extension of time to forward Balancing all of these factors, dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute is warranted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 4/28/11 8 Dated: 9 .. - 10 11 stephen V. Wilson United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 Presented By: ~~ ~pt"(#~- Marc L. Goldman United States Magistrate Judge 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.
