Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD C. HANNA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARIPOSA SHERIFF DEPT, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv0501 AWI DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff Richard C. Hanna (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma 

pauperis, filed the instant action on April 2, 2012.

On June 25, 2012, the Court issued an order finding service of the complaint proper and 

instructing Plaintiff to complete and return service documents within thirty (30) days. More than 

thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to submit service documents.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed for 

failure to follow a Court order and failure to prosecute.

DISCUSSION

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 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 14 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 3
2

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

to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, 

where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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. United States Postal Serv., 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 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. This case 

has been pending since April 2, 2012. 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, Inc., 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. 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 14 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 3
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

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, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 25, 2012, order 

requiring Plaintiff to submit service documents expressly stated: “The 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.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for 

failure to follow a Court order and for failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. 

Ishii, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The 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: August 20, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 14 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 3