Larry Wayne Pasley, Jr. v. Pat Horn, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WAYNE PASLEY, JR., Case No. 1:25-cv-00682 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 14 PAT HORN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Larry Wayne Pasley seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his constitutional 18 rights. (See generally Doc. 9.) Because Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to 19 comply with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint, the action is DISMISSED without 20 prejudice. 21 I. Relevant Background 22 On November 24, 2025, the Court adopted the October 9, 2025 findings and 23 recommendations and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state any cognizable constitutional 24 claim. (Doc. 21 at 2.) It granted Plaintiff leave to amend and served him notice of this action at 25 his address of record. (Id.) The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. (Id.) 26 It warned Plaintiff that his “failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of 27 the action and closure of this case file.” (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended 28 complaint or otherwise responded to the order. 1 II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders 2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of 3 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 4 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts 5 have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose 6 sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 7 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute an 8 action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th 9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended complaint); Malone 10 v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 11 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 12 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 13 III. Discussion and Analysis 14 To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a 15 Court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) the public’s interest in 16 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 17 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 18 (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 19 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 20 A. Public interest and the Court’s docket 21 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 22 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. 23 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 24 litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts 25 have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). 26 This Court cannot, and will not hold, this case in abeyance based upon the failure to comply with 27 the Court’s order and failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See 28 Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (a plaintiff has the burden “to 1 move toward ... disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive 2 tactics”). Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the action. 3 B. Prejudice to Defendant 4 To determine whether the defendant suffer prejudice, the Court must “examine whether 5 the plaintiff’s actions impair the . . . ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful 6 decision of the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 7 F.2d 611, 618 (9th Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff 8 unreasonably delays the prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 9 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff has not taken action to further the prosecution of the action, despite 10 being ordered by the Court to file an amended complaint upon granting Defendants’ motion to 11 dismiss. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal of the action. 12 C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions 13 The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first 14 considering the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States 15 v. Nat’l Medical Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, a court’s warning 16 to a party that the failure to obey could result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 17 alternatives” requirement. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. As the Ninth 18 Circuit explained, “a plaintiff can hardly be surprised” by a sanction of dismissal “in response to 19 willful violation of a pretrial order.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 133. 20 In the order dismissing the complaint, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply 21 with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of this action. (Doc. 22 21 at 2.) Importantly, the Court need only warn a party once that the matter could be dismissed 23 for failure to comply to satisfy the requirements of Rule 41. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; see also 24 Titus v. Mercedes Benz of North America, 695 F.2d 746, 749 n.6 (3rd Cir. 1982) (identifying a 25 “warning” as an alternative sanction). Accordingly, the Court’s warning satisfied the requirement 26 that lesser sanctions be considered, and this factor weighs in favor of dismissal of the action. See 27 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; Titus, 695 F.2d at 749 n.6. 28 /// 1 D. Public policy 2 Given Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the Court’s 3 | order, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor 4 | of dismissal. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy 5 | favoring disposition of cases on their merits ... weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to 6 | outweigh the other four factors”). 7 | IV. Conclusion and Order 8 Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action though his failure to file an amended complaint. In 9 | addition, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order dated November 24, 2025 (Doc. 21), 10 | despite a warning that failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this 11 } action. Accordingly, the Court finds the imposition of terminating sanctions is appropriate. 12 Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions/deadlines and 15 close this case. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _February 16, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28