Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00587/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00587-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR RODELA, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

M. MESKE, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-CV-0587 OWW WMW P

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

On October 7, 2005, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff

to submit a certified copy of his prison trust account statement pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The thirty (30) day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement, 

or otherwise responded to the court's order.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00587-OWW -WMW Document 18 Filed 03/07/06 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

2

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). 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, the court finds that the public’s interest in

Case 1:05-cv-00587-OWW -WMW Document 18 Filed 03/07/06 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

3

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 (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 expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed." Thus,

plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this

action be dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of

October 7, 2005. 

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. 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).

Case 1:05-cv-00587-OWW -WMW Document 18 Filed 03/07/06 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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00587-OWW -WMW Document 18 Filed 03/07/06 Page 4 of 4