Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00966/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00966-1/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

DAVID ANTHONY FALLON,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-0966 FCD GGH PS

vs.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant. FINDING & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed June 7, 2005, the court granted plaintiff twenty days to file an

amended complaint and either a completed application and affidavit in support of his request to

proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the appropriate filing

fee. In the June 7, 2000 order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint. 

The twenty day period expired, and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise

respond to the court’s order. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose

sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion.” Hernandez v. City of El

Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir.1998); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992) (affirming district court’s dismissal of pro se litigant’s civil rights complaint for failure to

comply with court’s order requiring amendment of caption to delete “et al.” designation and to

Case 2:05-cv-00966-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 07/19/05 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

name additional party defendants). Before dismissing a case for failure to comply with a court

order, the district court must consider: (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 defendants, (4)

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less

drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Pro se litigants

are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. 

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65

(9th Cir. 1986). 

In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has

considered the factors set forth in Henderson. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order

has impeded expeditious resolution of the instant litigation and has burdened the court’s docket,

consuming scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff demonstrates no

intention to pursue. Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the court’s order has precluded the court from considering the merits of

this action. In addition, defendant necessarily is prejudiced by delay in promptly initiating an

action. Finally, the court concludes that there is no suitable alternative sanction, plaintiff

apparently having no intent to conduct this litigation in accord with accepted practice. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the order filed June 7, 2005, and for

plaintiff’s failure to comply with that order, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal. 1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00966-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 07/19/05 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

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).

DATED: 7/19/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

Fallon966.fta

Case 2:05-cv-00966-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 07/19/05 Page 3 of 3