Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01048/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01048-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01048-LJO-SAB-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY 

A COURT ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On July 9, 2015, an order was entered, directing Plaintiff to complete and return to the 

Court a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was 

specifically cautioned that his failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action.

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. 

1998)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 

Case 1:15-cv-01048-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 12/11/15 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

27

28

2

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 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.

Here, 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. 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 the merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed 

herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that a failure to obey a court order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure 

to obey a court order.

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)(1)(B). Within thirty 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 waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan 158 

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1988). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

Case 1:15-cv-01048-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 12/11/15 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

27

28

3

right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01048-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 3