Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01591/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01591-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

ALLEN RICHARDSON, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

THE CITY OF FRESNO, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1591-OWW-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO PAY THE $250.00 FILING

FEE OR FILE AN APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC.

5)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 12, 2005.

However, Plaintiff neither paid the $250.00 filing fee nor filed

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 22,

2005, the Court directed Plaintiff within thirty days of service

either to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to

pay the $250.00 filing fee. The Clerk’s proof of service shows

that the order and a blank in forma pauperis application were

mailed to Plaintiff at the address listed in the docket on

Case 1:05-cv-01591-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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

December 22, 2005. More than thirty days have passed, and

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

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 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;

Case 1:05-cv-01591-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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

(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 this 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 the case

has been pending since December 2005. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal

because 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 -- the

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 requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee 

expressly stated that a failure of Plaintiff to pay the filing or

submit an application within thirty days would be considered to

be a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to

Local Rule 11-110, and the action might be dismissed. Thus,

Plaintiff received adequate warning that dismissal would result

from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

Case 1:05-cv-01591-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order.

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 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any

party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy

on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections

to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to

the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after

service of the objections. The parties are 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: January 31, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01591-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 4