Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00277-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH PUCKETT, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHIEF OF POLICE DYER, )

OFFICER VAN HALEN, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0277 REC DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2005. 

On April 1, 2005, the Court issued an order finding that service of the complaint was

appropriate for Defendants Fresno Chief of Police Dyer and Fresno Police Officer Van Halen. 

Plaintiff was directed to complete and return service documents, including two USM-285 forms,

within thirty (30) days of the date of the order. Plaintiff was warned that failure to do so would

result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with

the order. 

DISCUSSION

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

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 7 Filed 05/09/05 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

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 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 noncompliance with

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, as this case

has been pending since February 2005. 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;

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 7 Filed 05/09/05 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

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order directing Plaintiff to return service documents

expressly stated: “The failure to comply with this Order will result in a Recommendation that this

action be dismissed.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s April 1, 2005, order and for failure to prosecute this

action. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle

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

Recommendation.” 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: May 9, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00277-LJO -DLB Document 7 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 3