Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00130/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00130-1/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

 Plaintiffs confuse the “total consent” procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) with a right to

refuse magistrate judge participation in any aspect of their case. Of course, § 636(b) and Eastern

District Local rule 72-302 set forth the matters which magistrate judges can adjudicate on an

order or findings and recommendations basis without any consent by a party. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA CASTRO, et al., 

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-0130 DFL GGH PS

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, has been referred to the

undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-302(c)(21). Plaintiffs’ contention that this matter is

improperly before the undersigned for any purpose because they did not consent to the

assignment of a magistrate judge is without merit. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-302(c)(21).1

By order dated May 31, 2005, plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed with twenty

days leave to file an amended complaint and to submit either completed applications and

affidavits in support of their respective requests to proceed in forma pauperis on the forms

provided by the Clerk of Court, or the appropriate filing fee. The twenty day period has now

Case 2:05-cv-00130-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 07/20/05 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

expired and plaintiffs have failed to file appropriate applications to proceed in forma pauperis or

to pay the appropriate filing fee. That order warned that failure to comply with the order would

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Plaintiffs’ alleged representative, Lamont A. Houze, II (“Houze”), did file an

amended complaint, but failed to follow the court’s May 31, 2005, order in so doing. In

particular, plaintiffs disregarded the court’s order that because plaintiffs are proceeding in this

action without legal representation, each of them must individually sign every pleading, written

motion, and other paper filed with this court pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Instead, Houze filed an amended complaint on behalf of plaintiffs, which only he

signed. Houze is not and does not claim to be an attorney licensed to practice in this district. 

Rather, Houze calls himself the plaintiffs’ “attorney in fact” and cites to various portions of the

California probate code in an attempt to explain his disregard of 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

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). 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00130-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 07/20/05 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

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

considered the factors set forth in Henderson. Plaintiffs’ 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. Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their

merits, plaintiffs’ 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, plaintiffs apparently having no intent to conduct this litigation in accord with accepted

practice. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the order filed May 31, 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.” 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: 7/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

castro130.fta

Case 2:05-cv-00130-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 3