Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01262/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01262-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIFT A. Z. DIVINE ALLAH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:06-cv-01262-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH

RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. 21)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN TWENTY

DAYS

Plaintiff Gift A. Z. Divine Allah (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed January 16, 2007, the court

found that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any claims for relief against the named defendants. The

court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty

days from the date of service of that order. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed

an amended complaint 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 sanctionsincluding, where appropriate

. . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may th

Case 1:06-cv-01262-OWW -GSA Document 26 Filed 03/22/07 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

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 (9 Cir. th

1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. th

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se

th

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

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. 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 policyfavoring disposition of cases on their merits -- th

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 of January 16, 2007, requiring plaintiff to file an amended

complaint, expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order,

the court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

non-compliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice,

Case 1:06-cv-01262-OWW -GSA Document 26 Filed 03/22/07 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

for plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of January 16, 2007, and for the reasons set forth therein,

namely, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Th e s e F i n d i n g s a n d

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 twenty (20) 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: March 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01262-OWW -GSA Document 26 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3