Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00756/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00756-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R. RHODES,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0756 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

A. A. LAMARQUE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

By order filed June 15, 2006, this action was severed from CV F 06 0628 OWW WMW

P. This action was assigned to Plaintiff proceeding pro se. Plaintiff was directed to file an

amended complaint in this action. The thirty day period in which to file an amended complaint

has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or any other response to the order

of June 15, 2006.

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 the inherent

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

Case 1:06-cv-00756-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 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

2

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d

829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s th

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 th

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to th

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to th

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9 Cir. th

1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with 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. 

Here, 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. 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 -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on th

their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Case 1:06-cv-00756-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 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

3

plaintiff's failure to obey a court order.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a 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.

Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00756-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 3