Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01525/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01525-1/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

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

JHONATHAN FRYE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PFIEFER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-01525-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Jhonathan Frye is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on February 9, 2023. (Doc. 10.) 

On October 27, 2023, this Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 11.) The Court 

found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment threat to safety claim 

against Defendant Rodriguez and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants 

Vasquez and Rodriguez but failed to state a cognizable claim against any other named defendant. 

(Id. at 3-8.) Plaintiff was directed to elect of one three options within 21 days of the date of 

service of the order: (1) notify the Court he did not wish to file a second amended complaint and 

was willing to proceed only on his Eighth Amendment claim of a threat to safety against 

Defendant Rodriguez, and his First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Vasquez 

Case 1:21-cv-01525-KES-SKO Document 13 Filed 11/28/23 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

and Rodriguez, the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a second amended complaint 

curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. 

(Id. at 8-9.) More than 21 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a second amended 

complaint, or a notice to proceed on his cognizable claims or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 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.” 

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 

1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 

B. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Second Screening Order. He has 

neither filed a second amended complaint, nor a notice to proceed only on the cognizable claims

or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff 

ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors—the public’s 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket—weigh 

Case 1:21-cv-01525-KES-SKO Document 13 Filed 11/28/23 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

in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 

occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 

(9th Cir. 1976). Here, the Court’s October 27, 2023, screening order provided Plaintiff 21 days 

within which to file a second amended complaint, or a notice to proceed on his cognizable claims, 

or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has not 

responded to the Second Screening Order. His inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in 

prosecuting this action resulting in a presumption of injury. Therefore, the third factor—a risk of 

prejudice to defendants—also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 

“this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 

disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(citation omitted). By failing to comply with the Court’s October 27, 2023, order, or to otherwise 

contact the Court, Plaintiff is not moving this case forward and is impeding its progress. Thus, the 

fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

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

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

The Court’s Second Screening Order stated: “If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the 

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure ... to obey a court order.” 

(Doc. 11 at 9.) Further, in the Court’s First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil 

Rights Case, issued October 15, 2021, Plaintiff was advised, in relevant part: “In litigating this 

action, the parties must comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. 

Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California 

(“Local Rules”), as modified by this Order. Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition 

of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” 

Case 1:21-cv-01525-KES-SKO Document 13 Filed 11/28/23 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

(Doc. 2 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 

noncompliance. Therefore, the fifth factor—the availability of less drastic sanctions—also weighs 

in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, and in doing so, has failed 

to prosecute this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 

inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and to prosecute 

this action. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen 

to ignore. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action.

For the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED

without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 

this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 

Findings and Recommendations, a 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 result in 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: November 27, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01525-KES-SKO Document 13 Filed 11/28/23 Page 4 of 4