Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05967/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05967-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCIOUS E. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUTIERREZ, et. al.,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO 04-5967-OWW SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION 

 Lucious E. Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 17, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff,

however, did not file an Opposition to the Motion. Thus, on December 5, 2006, the Court issued

an order requiring Plaintiff to file an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The

allotted twenty-day period passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to

the Court’s order.

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 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s th

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 

Case 1:04-cv-05967-LJO -SMS Document 20 Filed 01/03/07 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

See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with th

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to th

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to th

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9 Cir. th

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. 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring th

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 of October 2, 2006, expressly stated: “Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with

this Order may result in a Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal of the Complaint could result

from non-compliance with the Court’s order. 

Case 1:04-cv-05967-LJO -SMS Document 20 Filed 01/03/07 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

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Complaint be DISMISSED

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110, and for Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of December

5, 2006. The Court also recommends that the pending Motion for Summary Judgment be

DENIED as moot. 

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 twenty

(20) 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 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 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05967-LJO -SMS Document 20 Filed 01/03/07 Page 3 of 3