Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00767-3/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

JASON DANIEL MATNEY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO HEAT TASK FORCE )

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL )

OFFICER L. PRATT ID # 13569, )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00767-AWI-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER,

EFFECTUATE SERVICE, AND OTHERWISE

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION (DOCS. 5,

8)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the Fresno County Jail

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for

damages and other relief concerning alleged civil rights

violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Background

On June 24, 2005, Plaintiff was directed to submit service

documents to the Court within thirty days. Further, Plaintiff was

informed that his failure to comply with the order would result

in a recommendation that the action would be dismissed for

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 5
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

failure to follow the Court’s order pursuant to Local Rule 11-

110. The order directing service and the service documents that

Plaintiff was to complete and return were served by mail on

Plaintiff on the same date. Well over thirty days passed, and

Plaintiff failed to submit service documents or to take any steps

to effectuate service.

On November 9, 2005, there was served on Plaintiff by mail

by the Court an order to show cause within fifteen (15) days why

this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey the

Court’s order of June 24, 2005, to submit service documents and

effectuate service on Defendants Pratt and Dewey. 

Over fifteen days have passed since the service of the order

to show cause, but Plaintiff has not responded or shown cause why

the action should not be dismissed. The order to show cause that

was served by mail was returned to the Court with the notation

that Plaintiff was not in custody. Local Rule 83-182(f) provides

that absent a notice of change of address, service of documents

at the prior address of a party or an attorney shall be fully

effective. Plaintiff has not given notice of any change of

address; thus, service at his prior address was fully effective. 

II. Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute the Action

 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

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 5
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

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 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, because the complaint has been pending

for a lengthy period the Court finds that the public’s interest

in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 12/05/05 Page 3 of 5
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

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. The Court’s order requiring

Plaintiff to show cause mentioned dismissal as the consequence of

failure to respond to the order. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate

warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with

the Court’s order.

III. Recommendation 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action BE

DISMISSED based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action

and to obey the Court’s orders to serve the complaint and to show

cause, and that the Clerk of Court BE DIRECTED to enter judgment

for Defendant because the dismissal would terminate the action in

its entirety. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant

to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty

(30) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 12/05/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Court. Such a 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 12/05/05 Page 5 of 5