Jessie Jeffries v. K Fields et al, No. 2:2012cv01351 - Document 72 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Manuel L. Real. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed based upon plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the OSC. See Order for details. (dml)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jessie Jeffries v. K Fields et al Doc. 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) Case No. CV 12-1351 R(JC) ) Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. ) ) K. FIELDS et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ ) JESSIE JEFFRIES, On August 10, 2012, plaintiff Jessie Jeffries ( plaintiff ) who is in custody, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is proceeding pro se, and has paid the filing fee filed the operative First Amended Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), asserting claims against multiple defendants connected with the Federal Correctional Complex in Lompoc, California where plaintiff was formerly housed. The Court thereafter dismissed certain defendants and claims in the First Amended Complaint. On June 18, 2014, the remaining defendants filed an Answer to the remaining claims in the First Amended Complaint. On June 18, 2014, the assigned United States Magistrate Judge ( Magistrate 26 27 28 Judge ) issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order ( Case Management /// Dockets.Justia.com 1 Order ) which required, among other things, that the parties file a status report no 2 later than August 18, 2014. Defendants timely filed a status report on August 15, 3 2014, noting therein that plaintiff had failed to respond to outstanding 4 interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for the production of 5 documents, and that plaintiff s responses thereto had been due on August 4, 2014. 6 Plaintiff failed to file the required status report. 7 In light of plaintiff s failure to file the requisite status report, the Magistrate 8 Judge, on September 4, 2014, issued an Order to Show Cause directing plaintiff to 9 file the requisite status report and to show cause in writing, on or before September 10 18, 2014, as to why he had failed to file the required status report and why the Court 11 should not impose a sanction, including dismissal of this case for failure to 12 prosecute, based upon plaintiff s failure to file the status report. The Order to Show 13 Cause expressly cautioned plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Order to 14 Show Cause and/or to show good cause, might result in the dismissal of this action 15 for failure to prosecute. To date, plaintiff has not filed a status report or a response 16 to the Order to Show Cause and the deadline to do so has passed. 17 It is well-established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff s 18 action because of his failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. See Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962);p; 20 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 21 (1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or 22 failure to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors: 23 (1) the public s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court s need 24 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy 25 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 26 alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to 27 prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to comply with court orders). 28 /// 2 1 The Court finds that the first two factors the public s interest in 2 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court s interest in managing the 3 docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance 4 indefinitely awaiting plaintiff s response to the Court s directives. The third factor, 5 risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a 6 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 7 prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 8 1976). The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 9 merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 10 Finally, as plaintiff has already been cautioned of the consequences of his failure to 11 prosecute and his failure to comply with the OSC, has been afforded the 12 opportunity to do so, and has not responded, no sanction lesser than dismissal 13 without prejudice is feasible. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed based upon 15 plaintiff s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the OSC. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: October 7, 2014 18 19 ________________________________________ 20 HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
