Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06287/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06287-1/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK MONROE DAVIS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6287 REC DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION

vs.

D.G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Kirk Monroe Davis (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 10, 2004, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint

curing the deficiencies identified therein within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order.

The thirty-day period has passed, and plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the

court’s order.

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 including, where appropriate

. . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court

Case 1:04-cv-06287-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/05 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

order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.

1995)(dismissal for noncompliancewith local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);Carey v. King,

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

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

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.

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 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 (9th 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 his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order of November 10, 2004, expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to file an

amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court will recommend that this action be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate

warning that dismissal could result from non-compliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the complaint be DISMISSED for

Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of November 10, 2004, and for failing to state a claim on

which relief can be granted. 

Case 1:04-cv-06287-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/05 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 andRecommendations are 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.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06287-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 3