Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00180/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00180-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

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

WILLIAM MACK BRYSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HONORABLE CHARLES SAMUELS, JR.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-0180 LJO-BAM

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS 

CASE

On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff William Mack Bryson, proceeding pro se, filed this suit 

pursuant to the civil enforcement provision of the Freedom of Information Act. On October 2, 

2014, Plaintiff was ordered to fill out an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, or pay the $400.00 

filing fee, within forty-five (45) days, or on or before November 16, 2014. To date, Plaintiff has 

not filed an IFP application, or paid the filing fee as ordered.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “a 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00180-LJO-BAM Document 3 Filed 01/09/15 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

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 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 

apprized 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 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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-

61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

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 because this 

case has been pending in this Court since February 10, 2014, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing 

fee or filed an IFP application. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in 

favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any 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. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his or her failure to obey 

Case 1:14-cv-00180-LJO-BAM Document 3 Filed 01/09/15 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 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. 

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

order was clear that dismissal would result for failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 2).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 

Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within fifteen (15) days 

after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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: January 8, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00180-LJO-BAM Document 3 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 3