Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00873/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00873-3/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

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

DERRICK JESUS ODEN, SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-00873-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 16, 18)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Derrick Jesus Oden, Sr., (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 

action on June 9, 2014. 

On June 1, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint with leave to 

amend within thirty days. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days to 

amend his complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file a third

amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, this action would be dismissed for 

failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16.) The deadline for 

Plaintiff to file his third amended complaint has passed, and he has not complied with or 

otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

Case 1:14-cv-00873-LJO-BAM Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

any order of the Court may be grounds for 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

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. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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. This action has been 

pending since June 2014. Plaintiff has made no attempt to contact the Court or otherwise 

comply with the Court’s most recent orders. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance 

awaiting such compliance by Plaintiff. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, 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, 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; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 

779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 1, 2015 order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his 

Case 1:14-cv-00873-LJO-BAM Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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

complaint expressly stated, “If Plaintiff fails to file a third amended complaint in compliance 

with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to 

state a claim.” (ECF No. 16, p. 8.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could 

result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s June 1, 2015 order, for failure to state a claim, and 

for failure to prosecute. 

These findings and recommendations will be 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 

fourteen (14) days after being served with 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 is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” 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: August 27, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00873-LJO-BAM Document 19 Filed 08/27/15 Page 3 of 3