Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01567/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01567-17/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

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

JASON SAUNDERS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDER

(Doc. 56.) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

On October 8, 2013, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file a Fourth 

Amended Complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed with the claims found 

cognizable by the Court, within thirty days. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff has been granted six

extensions of time to comply with the Court’s order. (Docs. 58, 60, 62, 66, 68, 70.) The 

deadline has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, a Notice, or 

any other response to the Court's order.

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives 

set forth in its order, Athe Court must weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.@ Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 71 Filed 12/12/14 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

A>The public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,=@

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 

action has been pending since 2006. Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order may 

reflect Plaintiff's disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot 

continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by 

defending his lawsuit. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, Apendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 

and of itself to warrant dismissal.@ Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, Adelay inherently 

increases the risk that witnesses= memories will fade and evidence will become stale,@ id., and it 

is Plaintiff's failure to file a Fourth Amended Complaint or Notice that is causing delay. 

Therefore, the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in 

forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the stage of 

these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch 

as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short 

of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

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

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court=s order of October 8, 2013. 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 thirty (30) 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 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ F.3d __, __, No. 11-

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 71 Filed 12/12/14 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

17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01567-AWI-GSA Document 71 Filed 12/12/14 Page 3 of 3