Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02080/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02080-4/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

MADRID MARCOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. ANGLEA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-2080-OWW-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Madrid Marcos is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on October

1, 2009 in the Northern District of California. The case was transferred to this Court on

November 18, 2009. On November 30, 2009, the Court issued its First Informational Order

outlining the general procedures associated with prosecuting a civil rights action. (ECF No.

10.) Plaintiff was ordered to complete the enclosed Order Re Consent or Request for

Reassignment and return it to the Court within thirty days. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff did not

respond, and on January 20, 2010, the Court issued a second Order Re Consent or

Request for Reassignment for Plaintiff to complete and return within thirty days. (ECF No.

11.) A third Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment was issued on March 8,

2010; Plaintiff was to complete and return it within thirty days. (ECF No. 13.) 

The Court has yet to receive a completed consent form from Plaintiff. 

On May 4, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Plaintiff to show cause within thirty

Case 1:09-cv-02080-OWW -MJS Document 18 Filed 07/16/10 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 The Court notes that the Order to Show Cause was inadvertently filed twice. (ECF Nos. 15 &

1

16.) 

-2-

days as to why his action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 15.) 1

The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with its order would result in dismissal of

this action. (Id.) More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the

Court’s Show Cause Order. 

Local Rule 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 “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 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. 

Case 1:09-cv-02080-OWW -MJS Document 18 Filed 07/16/10 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-

Here, 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public th

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 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1424. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order.

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) (1).

Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party

may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 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. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-02080-OWW -MJS Document 18 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 3