Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01413/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01413-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

JESSE RODRIGUEZ, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, )

et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07-cv-01413 AWI GSA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(Document 10)

On December 19, 2007, the court issued a second order for plaintiff, a county jail inmate

proceeding pro se, to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. 

The thirty (30) day period for plaintiff to comply with the order has now expired, and plaintiff

has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee or otherwise

responded to the court's order. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

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 “[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.

Case 1:07-cv-01413-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/04/08 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

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; 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 (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, 963 F.2d

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

plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee expressly

stated: “Failure of Plaintiff to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed." Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the court’s order. Further, this was the second order of the Court directing

plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the requisite filing fee.

Case 1:07-cv-01413-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/04/08 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

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order entered on December 19, 2007. 

These findings and recommendation 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

thirty 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." The parties are 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: February 4, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01413-AWI-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/04/08 Page 3 of 3