Comundoiwilla v. Evans
Filing
66
ORDER Dismissing Action for Failure to Prosecute, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/29/11. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LAMAVIS A. COMUNDOIWILLA,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06721-LJO-BAM PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE
v.
(ECF No. 64)
12
13
M. S. EVANS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
16
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
17
Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). This action was filed on December 17, 2004. On October 13,
18
2011, an order issued dismissing certain claims and defendants and directing Plaintiff to provide
19
information within thirty days to identify the Doe Defendants. More than thirty days have passed
20
and Plaintiff has failed to provide the information or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
21
Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond would result in this action being dismissed.
22
The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,
23
impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles
24
County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure
25
to comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
26
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
27
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability
28
of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d
1
1
1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court
2
in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action.
3
Id. (citation omitted).
4
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the court order, the Court
5
is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action, which
6
has been pending since 2004, can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance
7
with the order at issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted.
8
Id. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to prosecute, without prejudice.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
b9ed48
November 29, 2011
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
