Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01100/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01100-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RANDOLPH EPPS CASE NO. CV-F-05-1100-LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER 

WARDEN KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS

(Doc. 20)

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 27, 2008, the court issued an order dismissing

plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due within 30 days from

the date of service of the order. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not responded to the

court’s order and has not filed an amended complaint.

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 (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.

Case 1:05-cv-01100-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 04/22/08 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

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 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, as this case has

been pending since August 29, 2005. 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 v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order

expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

will recommend that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, based on plaintiff’s

failure to obey the court’s order of February 27, 2008. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

Case 1:05-cv-01100-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 04/22/08 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

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: April 21, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

d274kd UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01100-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 3