Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00511-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH, Case No. 07-cv-0511 AWI TAG

 

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

vs. TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 

THE GOVERNMENT OR THE (Doc. 6) 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

 /

On March 30, 2007, Plaintiff James E. Smith (“Smith”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). On May 23, 2007, upon concluding that Smith’s

petition did not challenge his conviction or sentence and thus was not properly a habeas action, the

Court entered an order redesignating the petition as a general civil complaint. (Doc. 4). On June 11,

2007, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice and granting Plaintiff

leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Doc. 6). In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff

either to pay the $350 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30

days. (Id.). Plaintiff was specifically warned that his failure to comply with the Court’s June 11,

2007 order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.). Smith has yet to

file an amended complaint, pay the filing fee, or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis,

and, thus, failed to comply with the Court’s order. (See generally docket). 

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 1:07-cv-00511-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 08/16/07 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 (9th Cir.

1986). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order, 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. 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir.

1988). 

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. The third

factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, 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, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- 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 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262

(9th Cir. 1992); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132-133 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 11, 2007 order expressly states in bold letters: “PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED. SEE LOCAL RULE 11-110.” (Doc. 6) (emphasis in

original). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance

with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED with

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s June 11, 2007 order. (Doc. 6). 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00511-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 08/16/07 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

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)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

fifteen (15) 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.” The District Judge 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 Judge’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00511-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3