17 Cited authorities

Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (1991) Cited 9,241 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"
Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.
370 U.S. 626 (1962) Cited 23,821 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte
Ferdik v. Bonzelet
963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 15,410 times
Holding that a district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint prior to dismissal
In re Phenylpropanolamine
460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 4,476 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[f]ailing to produce documents" and "unreasonable delay" both support the court's finding of prejudice
Ghazali v. Moran
46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 7,196 times
Holding that a court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to comply with the court's Local Rules
Pagtalunan v. Galaza
291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 4,364 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on a 41(b) motion, it is within the district court's discretion to decide whether to dismiss when the balance is close
Yourish v. California Amplifier
191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 3,699 times
Holding that a district court that had granted leave to amend the complaint did not abuse its discretion by dismissing entire action when plaintiff failed to replace a defective complaint
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service
833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 6,195 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that dismissal is appropriate where failure to comply with court's orders prejudiced the defendants and burdened both the court's docket and the public interest in speedy litigation, and the district court considered less drastic sanctions and warned the plaintiff before dismissal
Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles
782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 5,614 times
Holding that in exercising its power to control its own docket, the Court may impose sanctions
Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States Forest Service
403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 2,237 times
Holding that under some circumstances "courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte"
Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 Cited 109,076 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"
Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Cited 46,188 times 321 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 36 - Requests for Admission
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Cited 6,120 times 12 Legal Analyses
Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

Boynton v. Federal Correction Institution Dublin

17 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte

Holding that a district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint prior to dismissal

Holding that "[f]ailing to produce documents" and "unreasonable delay" both support the court's finding of prejudice

Holding that a court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to comply with the court's Local Rules

Holding that, on a 41(b) motion, it is within the district court's discretion to decide whether to dismiss when the balance is close

Holding that a district court that had granted leave to amend the complaint did not abuse its discretion by dismissing entire action when plaintiff failed to replace a defective complaint

Holding that dismissal is appropriate where failure to comply with court's orders prejudiced the defendants and burdened both the court's docket and the public interest in speedy litigation, and the district court considered less drastic sanctions and warned the plaintiff before dismissal

Holding that in exercising its power to control its own docket, the Court may impose sanctions

Holding that under some circumstances "courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte"

Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"

Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"