Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00989/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00989-1/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

RICHARD MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

POWERS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-989 OWW SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION 

 Richard Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, along with two other inmates, filed a civil rights

action on May 16, 2005. However, the Court severed the action on August 3, 2005, requiring

each plaintiff to proceed individually in a civil rights action. The Court Order also required the

Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint by September 6, 2005, as there is no complaint in his

action on which to proceed. To date, however, Plaintiff has filed no Amended Complaint 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in compliance with the Court Order or made any other

attempt to contact the Court. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that a “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 Ain the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d

Case 1:05-cv-00989-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/19/06 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

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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, 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 Respondents; (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). 

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, as this case has been pending

since May of 2005. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting

compliance by Plaintiff. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Respondents, 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, the court’s warning to a party that failure

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives”

requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779

F.2d 1424. The Court’s order dated August 3, 2005, expressly stated that Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the Court’s order might result in a Recommendation that the action be dismissed.

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

Court’s Order. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Case 1:05-cv-00989-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/19/06 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

Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court

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 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court 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: January 19, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00989-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 3