Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01391-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

PRICE, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-01391-AWI-SMS-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

(Doc. 8.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

On December 2, 2009, the court issued an order giving plaintiff two options, to file an amended

complaint or to notify the court of his willingness to proceed with the claims found cognizable by the

court, within thirty (30) days. The thirty (30) day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth

in its order, “the Court must weigh the following 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

defendants/respondents; (4) the availabilityof less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policyfavoring

disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

///

1

Case 1:07-cv-01391-AWI -GBC Document 9 Filed 02/04/10 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

27

28

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” id. 

(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action has

been pending for more than two years. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order may reflect

Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot continue to expend

its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by either submitting an amended

pleading making the clarifications required by the Court or by notifying the court of his willingness to

proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in

favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of

itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the risk

that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is Plaintiff's failure to set

forth clear claims in the first instance and to respond to the Court's order in the second instance that is

causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available

to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action,

making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion

of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this

case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of

dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh

against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of December 2, 2009. 

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)(l). Within thirty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 

2

Case 1:07-cv-01391-AWI -GBC Document 9 Filed 02/04/10 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

27

28

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: February 4, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01391-AWI -GBC Document 9 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 3