Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06507/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06507-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE HOOD III, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6507 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Leslie Hood III (“plaintiff”) has been incarcerated and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). Plaintiff proceeds with a

form complaint (“complaint”) to name as defendants the Fresno Police Department, Fresno Police

Officer Rivera and Fresno Police Officer Cooper. The complaint alleges that during a September 11,

2004 traffic stop and search, plaintiff was arrested for narcotics violations, and $19,000 and drugs were

confiscated. The complaint notes that the $19,000 was not placed in plaintiff’s prison trust account at

the Fresno County jail. For relief, the complaint asks “the Courts to clear this matter with the Fresno

Police Departmen (sic) and place my money on record or return money to me.”

This Court issued its September 16, 2005 order to dismiss the complaint on grounds it fails to

Case 1:04-cv-06507-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

satisfy pleading requirements, fails to state a section 1983 or other cognizable claim, is vague, and

appears intended to vex defendants. This Court issued several orders to grant plaintiff extensions to file

an amended complaint, the last of which granted plaintiff up to November 15, 2005 to file an amended

complaint. This Court’s September 16, 2005 and November 14, 2005 orders admonished plaintiff that

“failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order will result in a

recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order.” (Original in bold.)

Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

Failure To Comply With Orders

This Court’s Local Rule 11-110 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 inherent power to

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” 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 obey a court order or 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. U.S. Postal Service, 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 failure to comply with a court order or local rules

or for lack of prosecution, a 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 defendant;

(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 1260-1261; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

Case 1:04-cv-06507-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

In this 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 as plaintiff has not advanced this

action with his unexplained failure to file an amended complaint. The third factor -- risk of prejudice

to defendant -- 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, 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. 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 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d

at 1424. No less than two of this Court’s orders admonished plaintiff that “failure to file an amended

complaint in compliance with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for

failure to obey a court order.” (Bold in original.) Thus, plaintiff received adequate warning that

dismissal will result from noncompliance with this Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this action.

Quite simply, plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s orders or to meaningfully and intelligently

respond to them.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS to DISMISS this action without prejudice on grounds

plaintiff has failed to: (1) file an amended complaint; (2) comply with this Court’s orders; and (3)

diligently prosecute this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than December 16, 2005,

plaintiff may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on the magistrate judge in

compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be captioned "Objections

to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will then review the

magistrate judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).

Plaintiff is admonished not to attempt to file an amended complaint as plaintiff’s recourse

Case 1:04-cv-06507-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 11/17/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

is to object to these findings and recommendations. Plaintiff is further admonished this Court will

strike any papers to attempt to file an amended complaint unless this Court specifically grants

plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06507-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 11/17/05 Page 4 of 4