Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00517-42/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

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. CUSTINO,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-CV-0517-TLN-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a status report

within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action for 

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To 

date, Plaintiff has not complied.

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 209 Filed 01/05/23 Page 1 of 2
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

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986). 

Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to file a status 

report as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 5, 2023

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00517-DMC Document 209 Filed 01/05/23 Page 2 of 2