Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01096/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01096-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORWOOD ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. CAHLANDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01096 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THE ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Norwood Armstrong, (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on July 14, 2014. 

On June 5, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and found it stated a claim of excessive 

force under the Eighth Amendment against Correctional Officers L. Cahlander, F. Gonzales, and D. 

Perez, and a claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment against Sergeant J. 

Gonzales and Nurse D. Niemiev. Service was authorized, and Plaintiff was provided with service 

documents for completion and return within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff 

has failed to return the completed service documents. 

Local Rule 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01096-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 07/17/15 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

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 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: “The 

failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” 

Case 1:14-cv-01096-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 07/17/15 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

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 

Court’s order.

RECOMMENDATION

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

Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of June 5, 2015. 

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 fourteen (14) 

days after date of service of 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01096-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 3