Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06353/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06353-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDEN GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

SULLIVAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03-6353 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE AND DISREGARD MOTION

TO DISMISS. 

(Doc. 43.) 

 Linden Graham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action was filed on October 1, 2003. On July 6, 2006, the Court issued a Scheduling

Order setting forth numerous deadlines. The Order served on Plaintiff was returned to the Court

on July 19, 2006, indicating that Plaintiff was “out of custody.” 

On August 30, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for Plaintiff’s alleged

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. However, as Plaintiff still had not informed the

Court of a change of address, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on October 24, 2006,

why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was granted thirty days

in which to respond. On November 3, 2006, the Postal Service returned the Order to Show

Case 1:03-cv-06353-AWI-GSA Document 46 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Cause to the Court stamped “out of custody.” 

Local Rule 11-110 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 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s th

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 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with th

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to th

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to th

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9 Cir. th

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. 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring th

Case 1:03-cv-06353-AWI-GSA Document 46 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

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 v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s

order of October 2, 2006, expressly stated: “Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with

this Order may result in a Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal of the Complaint could result

from non-compliance with the Court’s Order. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the action be DISMISSED

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110, and for Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of October 24,

2006, and for his failure to keep the Court apprised of his mailing address. The Court also

RECOMMENDS that the pending Motion to Dismiss be DISREGARDED in light of the

pending dismissal. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

TWENTY (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06353-AWI-GSA Document 46 Filed 12/05/06 Page 3 of 3