Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01015/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01015-0/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

Plaintiff Randy Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the action on July 7, 2013. On March 7, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint and granted Plaintiff the option of either filing an amended complaint or notifying the Court 

of his intent to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable. More than thirty days have passed 

and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is 

no pleading on file which sets forth the operative claims for which Plaintiff intends to proceed. 

Plaintiff was warned that dismissal would occur if he failed to obey the order.

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, 

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles 

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court 

must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 

RANDY WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SANDUVAL, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01015-LJO-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDER

[ECF No. 9]

Case 1:13-cv-01015-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 2
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

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 sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine 

(PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must 

be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, the Court is left with no 

alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can proceed no further 

without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the action cannot simply 

remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for 

failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

This Findings and Recommendation will be 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 this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” 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: April 25, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01015-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/25/14 Page 2 of 2