Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05760/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05760-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE ROGOFF,

Plaintiff, CV F 02 5760 REC WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DR. OLIVER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 13, 2005, an order to show cause was entered, directing plaintiff to show

cause within twenty days why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show cause.

 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

Case 1:02-cv-05760-REC-WMW Document 28 Filed 05/17/05 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

2

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; (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 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- 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. 

 Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Case 1:02-cv-05760-REC-WMW Document 28 Filed 05/17/05 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

3

plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

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) (1). Within

twenty 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. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05760-REC-WMW Document 28 Filed 05/17/05 Page 3 of 3