Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06023/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06023-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD FLEMING, ) 1:04cv6023 OWW DLB

)

 )

) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

) REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff, )

 vs. )

)

)

COUNTY OF MERCED et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 17, 2004, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The

Court explained that Plaintiff’s claims should have been filed in a petition for writ of habeas corpus

and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint by completing the enclosed petition. The

Court further explained that if he did not do so, the Court would recommend that his action be

dismissed. 

On August 24, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 17, 2004,

order. The motion was denied on October 25, 2004. To date, Plaintiff has not amended his

complaint or otherwise contacted the Court.

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

Case 1:04-cv-06023-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 06/28/06 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

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 (9 Cir. 1986). th

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 (9 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 th

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring th

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for th

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 (9 Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with th

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. This case has

been pending since July 28, 2004. 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 -- th

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

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s

Case 1:04-cv-06023-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 06/28/06 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

order of August 17, 2004, requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, expressly stated that if

Plaintiff did not amend his complaint, the Court would recommend that the action be dismissed. 

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from non-compliance with the

Court’s order(s). 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to

follow the Court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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.” Replies to the objections shall

be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). 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: June 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06023-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 3