Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00313/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00313-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

BENNY RAY CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANE DOE, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00313-DAD DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

THIRTY- DAY OBJECETION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Benny Ray Carter (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

February 27, 2015. Pursuant to Court order, he filed a First Amended Complaint on October 5, 

2015.

On February 9, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and 

dismissed it with leave to amend. After the time for filing an amended complaint passed, the 

Court issued an order to show cause on April 7, 2016.

On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. He stated that he 

was “incompetent” in legal issues and could not proceed without Court help or assigned legal 

assistance. ECF No. 13, at 1. 

Based on this, the Court discharged the order to show cause on April 19, 2016. The Court 

explained that to the extent that Plaintiff requested the Court’s help, the Court had issued two 

Case 1:15-cv-00313-DAD-GSA Document 15 Filed 06/02/16 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

screening orders. Each order explained the problems with Plaintiff’s allegations, and how can 

remedy the issues. Plaintiff was granted another thirty (30) day extension to file an amended 

complaint. The Court explained, “Plaintiff is reminded that as set forth in the February 9, 2016, 

order, this will be his final opportunity to amend. If Plaintiff does not comply with this order, the 

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed.” ECF No. 14, at 2.

Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order to show 

cause, or otherwise contacted this Court.

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

for failure to comply with a pretrial order, 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) Products Liability 

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation 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. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

In this case, two factors weigh against dismissal while three factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no 

discernible prejudice to the defendants at this early stage in the proceedings, and public policy 

always favors disposition on the merits. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-28; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 

291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991-92. On the other hand, the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal. This case has been 

pending since February 27, 2015, and there is no operative complaint on file. The Court’s ability 

to manage its docket and guide cases toward resolution is significantly compromised by 

noncompliance with orders. Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory 

given that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and this action cannot proceed any further 

Case 1:15-cv-00313-DAD-GSA Document 15 Filed 06/02/16 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

absent his compliance with the order. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at

642-43; Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990-92. 

Plaintiff was also warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal of this action. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action BE DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s 

failure to follow Court orders 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 thirty 

(30) 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 

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: June 1, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00313-DAD-GSA Document 15 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 3