Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01031/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01031-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELINO MOISES MICHEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. FLOYD, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01031 AWI DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Marcelino Moises Michel (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 

July 2, 2014. 

On January 22, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of 

the order.

On March 16, 2015, after the time for filing his amended complaint had passed, the Court 

issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Plaintiff was ordered to file 

a response, or submit his amended complaint, within twenty-one (21) days. 

Over twenty-one (21) days have passed and Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show 

cause, or otherwise communicated with the Court.

Case 1:14-cv-01031-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 04/20/15 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

DISCUSSION

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles 

Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court 

must weigh “(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 sanctions.” In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not 

conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the 

Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can 

proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the 

action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. This action has been 

pending since July 2, 2014, and there is no operative complaint on file. Finally, the Court’s order to 

show cause was clear that dismissal would result from Plaintiff’s failure to respond.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for failure to obey the Court’s order and failure to prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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-one 

(21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01031-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 04/20/15 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

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within he 

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: April 20, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01031-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 3