Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01330/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01330-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH W. FICK, 1:05cv1330 OWW DLB 

Plaintiff,

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGES, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights action on September 30, 2005. 

On October 28, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma

pauperis or pay the filing fee within thirty days. Plaintiff has not done so.

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

Case 1:05-cv-01330-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/28/06 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

2

829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s th

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. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with th

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to th

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to th

keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9 Cir. th

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. This case

has been pending since September 30, 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 (9 Cir. th

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

Case 1:05-cv-01330-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/28/06 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

3

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 of October 28, 2005, requiring Plaintiff to file

an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, expressly stated that if Plaintiff

did not do so, the Court would recommend that the action be dismissed. Thus, Plaintiff had

adequate warning that dismissal would result from non-compliance with the Court’s order(s). 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s

failure to follow the Court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Court Judge, 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 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if

served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court 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 Court’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01330-OWW -DLB Document 7 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 3