Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03040/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03040-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BECKER, No. 2:12-cv-3040-KJM-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

K. FANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 6, 2015, the court directed plaintiff to file a status report within

30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a status report may result in the imposition of

appropriate sanctions, including dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 110. Plaintiff failed to

respond to the court’s order. On April 30, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing,

within 30 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to submit the status report as

ordered. He was again warned that failure to respond may result in dismissal of the action for the

reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. 

See id. Plaintiff again failed to comply with the court’s order. 

/ / /

1

Case 2:12-cv-03040-KJM-CMK Document 42 Filed 06/10/15 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

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file a status

report as directed, and failure to respond to the court’s order to show cause, the undersigned finds

that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

orders. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:12-cv-03040-KJM-CMK Document 42 Filed 06/10/15 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

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 10, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-03040-KJM-CMK Document 42 Filed 06/10/15 Page 3 of 3