Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00601/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00601-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

CAROLYN ALONSO, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00601 AWI-NEW (TAG)

 

Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

vs. TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Doc. 8) 

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS &

RECREATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On April 19, 2007, Plaintiffs Carolyn Alonso and Samuel Hockless, Sr., (collectively

“Plaintiffs,” except where individually referenced by name), non-prisoners proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint alleging employment discrimination, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. (Doc. 1). The Plaintiffs submitted separate applications to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 2, 7). This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303. 

On June 5, 2007, the undersigned dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 8). 

The order noted that Alonso, a temporary employee of Defendant California Department of Parks &

Recreation (“Defendant”), failed to allege that she had suffered an adverse employment action due to

her membership in a protected class. (Id.). In addition, because Hockless was not an employee of

Defendant, he could not raise a cause of action based on employment discrimination against

Defendant. (Id.). 

Case 1:07-cv-00601-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 08/28/07 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

27

28 2

The Court, however, granted Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint, within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of that order, to cure the deficiencies of the complaint as outlined

by the Court’s June 5, 2007, order. (Id.). The order was served on July 16, 2007. (See Docket

Entry dated July 16, 2007, Doc. 9). Plaintiffs were specifically warned that their failure to cure the

deficiencies would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Doc. 8). Plaintiffs

have yet to file an amended complaint and, thus, failed to comply with this Court’s order. (See

generally docket). 

. Local Rule 11-110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 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). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order, the 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 the Defendants; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir.

1988). 

In the instant 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. The third

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, 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, Inc., 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 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262

Case 1:07-cv-00601-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 08/28/07 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

27

28 3

(9th Cir. 1992); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

The Court’s order of June 5, 2007, expressly stated: “Failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.”

(Doc. 8) (emphasis in original). Thus, Plaintiffs had adequate warning that dismissal would result

from their noncompliance with the Court’s order.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without

prejudice, for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s June 5, 2007 order. (Doc. 8). 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)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fifteen (15) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiffs, individually or separately,

may file written objections with the Court. 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)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00601-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 08/28/07 Page 3 of 3