Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00604/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00604-1/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 Krzysztof Wolinski is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 25, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and ordered Plaintiff to either file 

an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be 

cognizable, within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff was warned that if 

he failed to comply, this action would be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court 

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

to the order. 

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 Cnty., 

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must weigh 

“(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 

KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. BEAM, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00604-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 

COURT ORDER

[ECF No. 11]

Case 1:15-cv-00604-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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) 

Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for 

a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

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 can proceed 

no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot 

simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court 

order and failure to prosecute. 

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, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

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

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 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: September 22, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00604-AWI-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2