Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898-17/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES T. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 24, 2013 the court ordered plaintiff to file a pretrial statement within 

30 days. ECF No. 108. That order warned plaintiff that his failure to file a pretrial statement 

could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action. Id. The time for 

acting has passed, and plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s 

order. Plaintiff has disobeyed this court’s order and failed to prosecute this action. It appears that 

plaintiff has abandoned the case. The appropriate action is dismissal without prejudice. 

A district court must “weigh five factors to determine whether to dismiss a case for lack of 

prosecution: (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 the 

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Eisen, 

31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994); accord, Southwest Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 109 Filed 12/03/13 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

1138 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the first two Ferdik factors support dismissal, as it appears that the 

court is devoting its limited judicial resources to this action despite plaintiff’s apparent intent to 

abandon it. Moreover, plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and Local Rules delays the 

progress of this litigation, likely causing prejudice to defendant. In addition, the court has already 

warned plaintiff that his failure to file a pretrial statement could result in dismissal, and monetary 

sanctions would be futile given plaintiff’s indigent status. Having considered the Ferdik factors, 

and in light of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action by filing a pretrial statement as directed, 

the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 

Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be 

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 

within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may recommend 

that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order 

or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did 

not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to refile an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local 

rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(b). 

 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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 109 Filed 12/03/13 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

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

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

Dated: December 3, 2013. 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 109 Filed 12/03/13 Page 3 of 3