Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00300-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA BELLOWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00300-CDB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Patricia Bellows is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 4, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 14.) This Court 

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleges Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claims against Defendants Villaboas and Voguel, as well as an Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant McClain but fails to allege any 

other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. at 5-14.) As a result, Plaintiff was 

ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of the date of service of the order: (1) notify the 

Court in writing that she did not wish to file a second amended complaint and she was willing to 

proceed only on the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Villaboas 

and Voguel, and the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 4
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

against Defendant McClain; the remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed; or (2) 

file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the Second 

Screening Order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 15.) Despite the passage of 

more than 21 days, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Second Screening Order in any 

way. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 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.” 

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 

1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

B. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff has failed to file either a notice to proceed on the claims found cognizable 

by the Court, or a second amended complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court 

cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating her case. Thus, the Court finds 

that both the first and second factors—the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 4
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

and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 

occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 

(9th Cir. 1976). Here, the Court’s Second Screening Order directed Plaintiff to elect one of three 

options: to proceed on her Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants 

Villaboas and Voguel, as well as an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs claim against Defendant McClain, the remaining claims to be dismissed, or to file a second 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the March 4, 2024 screening order, or to 

file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 14 at 15.) Plaintiff has taken no action whatsoever. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Second Screening Order, her inaction amounts to 

an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this case resulting in a presumption of injury. Therefore, the 

third factor—a risk of prejudice to defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 

F.2d at 1440. 

The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 

“this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 

disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(citation omitted). By failing to file a notice to proceed on her cognizable claims, a second

amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal, Plaintiff is not moving this case forward 

and is impeding its progress. Thus, the fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits—weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 

The Court’s March 4, 2024 screening order expressly warned Plaintiff as follows: “If Plaintiff 

fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for a failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 14

at 16, emphasis in original.) The First Screening Order included the same warning. (See Doc. 12 

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

at 11.) Finally, Plaintiff was also previously warned of the potential for dismissal for a failure to 

obey court orders in this Court’s First Informational Order In Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights 

Case, issued March 15, 2022, to wit: “In litigating this action, the parties must comply with this 

Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (‘Fed. R. Civ. P.’), and the Local Rules of the United 

States District Court, Eastern District of California (‘Local Rules’), as modified by this Order. 

Failure to comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the 

case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (Doc. 5 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 

that dismissal could result from her noncompliance. Therefore, the fifth factor—the availability of 

less drastic sanctions—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this action. 

Further, for the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action 

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to 

prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 

may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 4