Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01422/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01422-10/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 Hosam Kaddoura (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 29, 2014, the 

Court issued an order authorizing service of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and requiring 

Plaintiff to fill out and return the USM-285 forms and summonses within thirty days. On July 18, 

2014, after more than thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the 

order, the Court ordered him to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute, and warned him that the failure to file a response to the order would result in dismissal of 

the action. (ECF No. 43.) Several months have passed and Plaintiff has not responded to the order to 

show cause.

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 for failure to 

HOSAM KADDOURA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM Document 44 Filed 01/23/15 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

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh “(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 

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 or otherwise respond to these particular court 

orders, the Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This 

action, which has been pending since 2011, can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and 

compliance with the orders 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 prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendations 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 fourteen (14) 

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 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01422-LJO-BAM Document 44 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 2