Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00768-21/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

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

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

G GALAZA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-768-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 51)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2010,

the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint be stricken from the record

for failure to comply with a court order. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint was largely illegible, asserted multiple claims arising out of multiple

incidents, and generally violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 10(b), 18(a), and

20(a)(2). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint within thirty days or

face dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 47.) 

On June 15, 2010, on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court granted Plaintiff additional time

to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff’s third amended complaint was due

not later than August 16, 2010. The Court warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this

deadline may result in dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute.” (Id.)

To date, the Court has yet to receive Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Local Rule

11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or

Case 1:05-cv-00768-LJO-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/25/10 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-

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 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). A Court may dismiss an action, with prejudice,

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to

comply with 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); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for

failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, 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.

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 

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,

as this case has been pending over five years. 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, 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. In this case, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

Case 1:05-cv-00768-LJO-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/25/10 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-

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

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 fifteen (15) 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 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: August 24, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00768-LJO-MJS Document 52 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 3