Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01834/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01834-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY E. WILLIAMS, Case No. 06-cv-1834 OWW TAG

 

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

vs. TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 

STATE OFFICIALS, et al., (Doc. 6) 

Defendants.

 /

On December 1, 2006, Plaintiff Gregory E. Williams (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed a 42 .S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, (Doc. 1), and, on May 1, 2007, he filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). On May 7, 2007, the undersigned issued an order to dismiss

the complaint in its entirety because it did not contain allegations from which the Defendants could

infer that they had taken actions, or neglected to act, thereby depriving Plaintiff of rights secured to

him under the Constitution or federal statutes, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 

(Doc. 6). This Court further found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief

could be based, as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Id.). The Court, however, granted

Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

that order, to cure the deficiencies of the complaint as outlined by the Court’s May 7, 2007, order. 

Plaintiff was specifically warned that his failure to cure the deficiencies would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.). Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint

and, thus, failed to comply with this Court’s order. (See generally docket). 

Case 1:06-cv-01834-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 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 2

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 v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

1986). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order, 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. 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir.

1988). 

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

litigation and the Court’s 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 (9 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 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 of May 7, 2007, expressly

stated: “Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss

this action and/or the defendants named therein for failure to obey this Court’s order. Local

Rule 11-110.” (Doc. 6) (emphasis in original). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01834-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 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 3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED, without

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 7, 2007, order. These Findings and

Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case pursuant to

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the

United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fifteen (15) days after being

served with this report and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. 

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendations.” The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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: August 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01834-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3