Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02384/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02384-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBRA LYNN RANDELL, No. CIV S-07-2384-FCD-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MIKE WOODS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action against several defendants. On

April 24, 2008, following plaintiff’s failure to file a status report and failure to appear at a status

conference, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing within 20 days why this action

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with rules and/or court

orders. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond may result in dismissal of this action. To

date, plaintiff has not complied.

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)

Case 2:07-cv-02384-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 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

2

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

follow local rules. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file a status

report, failure to appear at a status conference, and failure to respond to an order to show cause as

directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

orders. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: May 28, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02384-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2