Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01046-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

VERNON KITTLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT HARO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 13) 

Plaintiff, Vernon Kittles (“plaintiff”), is a federal prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 5, 2005, the court issued an order requiring

plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies

identified therein, within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of that order. On December 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion to amend. On August 31, 2006, the court denied the motion

as moot, and granted plaintiff thirty (30) days within which to

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 22 Filed 12/15/06 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

comply. On September 27, 2006, the order served on plaintiff was

returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. A

notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Forwarding

Order Expired.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in propria

persona is required to keep the court apprised of his or her

current address at all times. Local Rule 83-183(b) provides, in

pertinent part:

If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria

persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S.

Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to

notify the Court and opposing parties within

sixty (60) days thereafter of a current

address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

In the instant case, more than sixty days have passed since

plaintiff's mail was returned, and he has not notified the court of

a current address. 

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 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 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, th

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 (9 Cir. th

1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for th

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 22 Filed 12/15/06 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

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for th

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 (9 Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with th

court order); 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; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

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, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth th

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

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 22 Filed 12/15/06 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

that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal

satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s initial order of December 5, 2005,

expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to comply with this order,

this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.” 

Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result

from non-compliance with the court’s order(s). 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of

December 5, 2005.

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 eleven (11) 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: December 15, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 22 Filed 12/15/06 Page 4 of 4