Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02090/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02090-2/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

REAMEL CURTIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 13)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Reamel Curtis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

December 26, 2013. 

On November 20, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s second amended complaint with 

leave to amend within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to 

file a third amended complaint in compliance with the order, this action would be dismissed 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 including, where appropriate, dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los 

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action 

Case 1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/06/15 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

for failure to comply with court order, the Court must weigh “(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.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 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 recommend dismissal of the action for failure to obey a 

court order and failure to prosecute. Id. This action, which has been pending since December

2013, 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 for failure to obey 

a court order and failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations 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 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The 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 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” 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: January 6, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02090-LJO-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 2