Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01122-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL LOPEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

CITY OF VISALIA, TULARE )

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-01122-AWI-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

LACK OF PROSECUTION, FAILURE

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS,

AND FAILURE TO OTHERWISE

CONTACT THE COURT

BACKGROUND

On September 2, 2005, plaintiff, through his counsel of

record, filed his complaint in this action (doc. 1). On September

6, 2005, the court issued its standard Order Setting Mandatory

Scheduling Conference (doc. 5-1) which required plaintiff to: (1)

promptly serve a copy of same on defendants; (2) file an

appropriate proof of such service with the court; (3) attend the

[initial] Mandatory Scheduling Conference on January 12, 2006 at

9:00 a.m. before Judge Snyder; and, (4) initiate with defendants,

prepare, and timely e-file a Joint Scheduling Report.

However, pursuant to a telephone call from plaintiff’s counsel

on January 11, 2006, advising that the defendants had not yet been

served, the court issued a Minute Order (doc. 7) continuing the

Mandatory Scheduling Conference from January 12, 2006 to March 21,

Case 1:05-cv-01122-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

2

2006 at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 before Judge Snyder, for which

plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear or otherwise contact the

court. This action has been alive and well for over six (6)

months, and, to date, the court’s docket simply, concisely, and

only consists of the following:

Date Filed Doc. # [Abbreviated] Docket Text

9/2/05 1 Complaint

9/2/05 2 Civil Cover Sheet

9/6/05  Receipt for $250.00 for Civil Filing Fee

9/6/05 3 Summons Issued as to City of Visalia

9/6/05 4 Summons Issued as to Tulare Co. Sheriff’s Dept.

9/6/05 5 Civil New Case Documents Issued

9/6/05 6 Notice of Noncompliance with Electronic Filing

Requirement

1/11/06 7 Minute Order: Initial Scheduling Conference

continued from 1/12/06 to 3/21/06 @ 9:15 a.m. in

Courtroom No. 7 before Judge Snyder. NOTE:

plaintiff’s counsel called 1/11/06 and advised that

defendants have not yet been served.

To date, plaintiff has failed to: (1) serve defendants with

the complaint; (2) serve defendants with a copy of the Order

Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference; (3) file appropriate

proofs of service; (4) initiate, prepare, and timely e-file a Joint

Scheduling Report; (5) attend the March 21, 2006 Scheduling

Conference; and/or, (6) otherwise contact the court.

DISCUSSION

This court’s 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 inherent power to control their

Case 1:05-cv-01122-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

3

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 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 this case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in

expeditiously resolving this litigation, and the Court’s interest

Case 1:05-cv-01122-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/22/06 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

27

28

4

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as plaintiff

has not advanced this action by failing to serve the complaint on

defendants and to attend the Scheduling Conference. 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.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, this Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action, failure to comply

with court orders, and failure to otherwise contact the court.

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 ten (10) court

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01122-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 4