Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00272-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARONERE WILTRON ARREOLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO PUBLIC 

DEFENDER’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00272-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF, 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 1, 4)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Haronere Wiltron Arreola (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United 

States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on February 24, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On March 11, 2020, 

Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and it was found that he had failed to state a cognizable claim. 

(ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.) More 

than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise 

responded to the Court’s March 11, 2020 order. 

Case 1:20-cv-00272-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 4
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

2

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 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).

III.

DISCUSSION

In this instance, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is warranted based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order to file an amended complaint that cures the 

deficiencies identified in the March 11, 2020 screening order. 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 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 to file an amended 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. United States Postal 

Serv., 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 lack of prosecution 

and failure to comply with local rules). 

“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 

required to 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 sanctions.’ ” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions 

Case 1:20-cv-00272-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 4
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

3

that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 

In this instance, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine 

(PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d at 1226. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 

complaint within thirty days of March 11, 2020. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed a first

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the March 11, 2020 order. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court and the Local Rules hinders the 

Court’s ability to move this action towards disposition, and indicates that Plaintiff does not 

intend to diligently litigate this action. Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate 

this action diligently there arises a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this 

action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). This risk of prejudice may be 

rebutted if Plaintiff offers an excuse for the delay. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1453. The risk of 

prejudice to the defendants weighs in favor of dismissal. 

The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. This 

action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at 

issue. This action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. In this 

instance, the fourth factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result 

in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The March 11, 2020 order expressly 

stated: “If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, the Court 

will recommend to the district judge that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and for failure to state a claim.” (ECF No. 4 at 20.) 

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 

the Court’s order.

///

Case 1:20-cv-00272-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of the court, failure to prosecute, and 

failure to state a claim.

This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 

(14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings 

and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). 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, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00272-AWI-SAB Document 5 Filed 04/22/20 Page 4 of 4