Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05626/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05626-12/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

DALE OWEN DUSTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION

(Doc. 47) 

Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 15, 2005, the court issued

an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that it was

illegible and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a), and requiring plaintiff to file a third amended complaint within

thirty days from the date of service of that order. Since the

issuance of the order, the court has granted plaintiff several

extensions of time. The last thirty-day extension of time was granted

on February 17, 2006. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff

has not complied with or otherwise respond to the court’s order.

///

Case 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 04/17/06 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

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. 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 (9

th 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

///

Case 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 04/17/06 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

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 2003. 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 initial order of September 15, 2005, expressly

stated: “If plaintiff either fails to file a third amended complaint

or files a third amended complaint that is not in compliance with this

order, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.” Thus,

plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the

court’s order of September 15, 2005, and on the grounds that

plaintiff’s second amended complaint is illegible and fails to comply

with Rule 8(a).

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United

States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions

Case 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 04/17/06 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

of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 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 14, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 04/17/06 Page 4 of 4