Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01073/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01073-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS L. GOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEIDI LACKNER,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01073-DAD-BAM-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF NO. 17)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Thomas Goff is a former state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On December 7, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s July 2, 2015 complaint with leave 

to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 17.) On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff was granted a thirty 

day extension of time. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint in 

compliance with the Court’s order, this action would be dismissed for failure to obey a court 

order and failure to state a claim. (Id. at 6:10.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended 

complaint has passed, and he has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 

Local Rule110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 

Case 1:15-cv-01073-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 03/04/16 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

within the inherent power of the Court.” District Courts have the inherent power to control their 

dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988).

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. This action has been 

pending since July 2, 2015. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting compliance by 

Plaintiff. The third factor, risk of prejudice to 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, 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 failure to obey the 

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of the alternatives” requirement. 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s 

December 7, 2015, order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint expressly stated: “If 

Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be 

dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 17 at 6:10.) 

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with the 

Case 1:15-cv-01073-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 03/04/16 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

Court’s order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s December 7, 2015, order, for failure to state a 

claim, and for failure to prosecute.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The 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 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

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

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01073-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3