Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405-6/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01405-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 27.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

On August 20, 2015, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a First 

Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 27.) The thirty day period has now expired, 

and Plaintiff has not filed a First Amended Complaint or otherwise responded to the court's 

order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 28 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 

action has been pending since June 25, 2014. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order 

may reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the court cannot 

continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 

complying with the court’s order to amend his complaint. Thus, both the first and second 

factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 

increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 

is Plaintiff's failure to file the First Amended Complaint that is causing delay. Therefore, the 

third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 

available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in 

forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage 

of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, 

inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the court is 

stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

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

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the court=s order of August 20, 2015. 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)(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 

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 28 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 28 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 3