Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613-3/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

ROBERT M. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HUTTON, et. al.,

Defendant.

 /

CV F 99-6613 OWW SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

OBEY THE COURT’S ORDER OF APRIL 4,

2005

(Doc. 65)

Robert M. Parker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 4, 2005, the Court issued an Order requiring the

parties to file pre-trial statements. Plaintiff was to file his pre-trial statement on or before May

18, 2005, and Defendant was to file his pre-trial statement on or before June 17, 2005. On May

17, 2005, Defendants moved to continue the trial. The District Court denied the request and set a

deadline for the parties to file pre-trial statements of July 11, 2005. Defendants filed their pretrial statement on July 11, 2005. However, to date, Plaintiff has not filed his pre-trial statement

or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

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

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 75 Filed 07/15/05 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 as this case

has been pending for six years. 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 (9th Cir. 1976). The

fourth factor -- public policy favoring 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 requiring Plaintiff to file a pre-trial statement

expressly stated: “The parties are advised that failure to file pre-trial statements as required by

this order may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include dismissal of

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 75 Filed 07/15/05 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

the action or entry of default.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result

from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of April 4, 2005. 

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 FIFTEEN

(15) 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: July 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 75 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3