Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00960-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD J. FLEMING, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ROSANNE FAUL, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00960-AWI-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE IN

FULL OR FILE AN APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND

FAILURE TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT (DOC. 3)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with what

appears to be an action for damages and other relief concerning

alleged civil rights violations. The matter has been referred to

the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local

Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

On August 26, 2005, the Court directed Plaintiff within

thirty days to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis

or to pay the filing fee in full because Plaintiff had not done

so; further, the Court directed Plaintiff within thirty days to

dismiss the action or to file an amended complaint or petition

for writ of habeas corpus because it appeared that Plaintiff was

attempting to seek damages for ineffective assistance of counsel

Case 1:05-cv-00960-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 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

rendered in a case resulting in a criminal conviction which

Plaintiff had not shown was invalidated. The docket reflects that

the Court’s order was served on Plaintiff on August 26, 2005.

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

(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)

Case 1:05-cv-00960-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 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

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 this 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 the case

has been pending since July 2005 without even the payment of the

filing fee. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants,

also weighs in favor of dismissal because 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 -- the 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 requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee and file an

amended complaint expressly stated that a failure of Plaintiff to

pay the filing fee in full, file an application to proceed in

forma pauperis, and file an amended complaint would be considered

to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court and would

result in dismissal of the action. Thus, Plaintiff received

Case 1:05-cv-00960-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 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

adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to

the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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." Any reply to

the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after

service of the objections. 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: October 11, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00960-AWI -SMS Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 Page 4 of 4