Summary
In Alexander et al. v. Fisher, 7 Ala. 514, the bill was filed, to quote from the reporter's statement of the case," * * * by the heirs at law of Edmund Alexander, deceased, against Fisher, who intermarried with the widow of said Alexander, to restrain him in committing waste in certain lands, which were attached as dower to his wife, as the widow of the said Alexander.
Summary of this case from Guest v. GuestOpinion
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-00342-DLB PC
08-04-2011
TONY B. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. FISHER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER
(DOC. 17)
Plaintiff Tony B. Alexander ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. On March 3, 2011, Plaintiff was ordered to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within forty-five days. Plaintiff failed to respond. On May 26, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff was ordered to file a response within thirty days. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed a response.
Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, 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 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 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to 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 court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff was ordered to respond as of May 26, 2011, and did not do so. 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 an 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, a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court's order expressly stated: "Failure to timely respond or to show cause will result in dismissal of this action." Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court's order.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court's May 26, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE