Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00184-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

BRADFORD McATHUR, CASE NO. CV F 06-0184 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

CITY OF TAFT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Bradford McAthur (“plaintiff”) was a state prisoner and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). Plaintiff proceeds with a

form complaint (“complaint”) to name as defendants the Taft City Police Department, Taft City police

officer Williams (Badge No. 27) (“Officer Williams”), and Taft City police officer Kinney (“Officer

Kinney”). The complaint’s caption includes “Officers Academy” as a defendant but the complaint lacks

specific allegations as to such defendant. The complaint alleges that during a December 28, 2004 traffic

stop, Officers Williams and Kinney used physical force to arrest plaintiff, who was injured. The

complaint seeks monetary damages for personal injury and punitive damages.

Case 1:06-cv-00184-AWI -LJO Document 23 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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

This Court issued its April 25, 2006 order(“April 25 order”) to dismissthe complaint on grounds

the complaint fails to satisfy pleading requirements and to allege cognizable section 1983 claims and

appears intended to vex Officers Williams and Kinney. The April 25 order granted plaintiff up to May

17, 2006 to file an amended complaint and admonished plaintiff that “failure to file an amended

complaint in compliance with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for

failure to obey a court order.” (Bold in original.)

Plaintiff failed to comply with the April 25 order and to file timely an amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

Failure To Comply With Orders

This Court’s 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 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 obey a court order or 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 lack

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order or local rules

or for lack of prosecution, a 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 defendant;

(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 1260-1261; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

Case 1:06-cv-00184-AWI -LJO Document 23 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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

In this 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 as plaintiff has not advanced this

action with his unexplained failure to file an amended complaint. 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 delayin 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 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d

at 1424. The April 25 order admonishes plaintiff that “failure to file an amended complaint in

compliance with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to

obey a court order.” (Bold in original.) Thus, plaintiff received adequate warning that dismissal will

result from noncompliance with this Court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. Quite simply,

plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order or to meaningfully and intelligently respond.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS to DISMISS this action without prejudice on grounds

plaintiff has failed to: (1) file an amended complaint; (2) comply with this Court’s order; and (3)

diligently prosecute this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than June 8, 2006, plaintiff

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on the magistrate judge in compliance with

this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will then review the magistrate judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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: May 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

Case 1:06-cv-00184-AWI -LJO Document 23 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00184-AWI -LJO Document 23 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 4