Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02022/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02022-6/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

Plaintiff Brandon Earl McCormick is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding against Defendants Doctor Alfonso, Bitanga, Pascua, Belallo, and 

Dean for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. 

On September 8, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment relating to 

exhaustion of the administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion and on October 24, 

2014, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute the action. Local Rule 230(l). On November 12, 2014, the Court discharged the order to 

show cause and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 

30.) More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to 

the order. 

///

BRANDON EARL McCORMICK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ATKIN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02022-LJO-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

[ECF No. 30]

Case 1:12-cv-02022-LJO-SAB Document 31 Filed 03/03/15 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

I.

DISCUSSION

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles 

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to 

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(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.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,” 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted), and Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is incumbent 

upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants,” Id. 

However, the Court is constrained to find that the prejudice factor weighs against dismissal because 

the mere pendency of an action does not constitute prejudice; and public policy favors disposition on 

the merits, which weighs against dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-

43.

Nevertheless, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 

1228-29; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. A monetary sanction has little to no benefit in a case in which 

the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or 

otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action 

for failure to prosecute. Id. This action, which has been pending since 2012, requires Plaintiff’s 

cooperation in its prosecution, the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, and the 

Court is not in a position to expend its scant resources resolving an unopposed motion in light of 

Plaintiff’s demonstrated disinterest in continuing the litigation. Id. In addition, Plaintiff has been 

forewarned that dismissal of the action would result for failure to comply with the court’s order. (ECF 

No. 30.) 

Case 1:12-cv-02022-LJO-SAB Document 31 Filed 03/03/15 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

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226; Local Rule 110. 

This Findings and Recommendation 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)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 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: March 2, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02022-LJO-SAB Document 31 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3