Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01484-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD POMARES

CHARLENE BOEH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF CERES, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01484-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 15 & 16)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. No other parties have appeared in the action. 

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiffs were ordered to submit, within thirty days, documents 

for service of the Complaint on Defendants. (ECF No. 15.) The thirty-day deadline 

passed without Plaintiffs either submitting their service documents or seeking an 

extension of time to do so. On October 16, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show 

cause why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to obey a court 

order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs did not respond or file their 

service documents with the Court.

Case 1:14-cv-01484-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 11/12/15 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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 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 

inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” 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, 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-

63 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a 

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 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 

1986) (dismissal for 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 [C]ourt’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.

III. ANALYSIS

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v. 

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999)). Plaintiffs have failed to comply 

with the Court’s Order to file their service documents. (ECF No. 15.) In such 

Case 1:14-cv-01484-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 11/12/15 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

circumstances, the Court cannot justify continuing to expend its scarce resources in this 

matter. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently 

prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991). 

However, “[u]nnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories 

will fade and evidence will become stale,” id. at 643 (citation omitted), and it is Plaintiffs’

failure to comply with Court orders that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor 

weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is 

little available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while 

protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. 

Plaintiffs have not paid the filing fee for this action and are likely unable to pay, making 

monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of these proceedings, the 

preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available.

Finally, because “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the merits,” this 

factor will always weigh against dismissal. Id.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be 

dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiffs’ failure to obey a court order and failure to 

prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

Case 1:14-cv-01484-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 11/12/15 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

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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: November 10, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01484-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 4