Bartlett et al v. DeBorsantos-Garcia et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALAN M. BARTLETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CHRIS DeBORSANTOS-GARCIA,
et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 3:14-cv-00240-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Alan M. Bartlett filed a civil Complaint on behalf of himself, U.S. Disabled
Veterans, LLC, and U.S. Handicapped/Disadvantaged Services, LLC.1 	He also
requested the Court to waive prepayment of the filing fee.2 	The Court reviewed
the Complaint and dismissed, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), without
prejudice.3 	In an Order to Amend and Show Cause, the Court explained the
deficiencies in the Complaint to Mr. Bartlett. 4 	But despite being warned that his
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 3.
3 Docket 8 at 8; see also O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e
construe a district court’s termination of an in forma pauperis complaint during the
screening process for a reason enumerated in § 1915A, § 1915(e)(2)(B), or § 1997e(c)
as a dismissal pursuant to the applicable section.”).
4 Docket 8 at 2-7.
Case 3:14-cv-00240-RRB Document 11 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 2

3:14-cv-00240-RRB, Bartlett v. DeBorsantos-Garcia
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 2
case would be dismissed unless he complied with the Court’s Order,5 Mr. Bartlett
has failed to file an Amended Complaint or a Response to Order to Show Cause.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and for failure comply with a court order
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6
2. 	All outstanding motions are DENIED.
3. 	This dismissal constitutes a STRIKE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).7
4. 	The Clerk of Court will enter a Judgment in this case.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 11th day of March, 2015.
/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
United States District Judge
5 Id. at 8-9.
6 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999) (To dismiss a case as a
sanction, “the district court must consider five 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.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260, 1262 (9th Cir.1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the
district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” And
“a district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in
dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ [to dismissal] requirement.”);
Arteaga v. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 522 U.S. 446 (1998) (per curiam) (“The
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of petitioner’s complaint
for failure to amend his complaints pursuant to the District Court’s instructions.”).
7 Mr. Bartlett currently has at least two strikes. 	Bartlett v. Zamora, 3:14-cv-00224-
RRB, Docket 10; Bartlett v. Arizona Department of Corrections, District of Arizona Case
No. 2:04-cv-02214-SRB-DKD, Dockets 5 and 6 (dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)).
Case 3:14-cv-00240-RRB Document 11 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2