Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01926/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01926-3/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AKIKA PARKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1926-GEB-KJN PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff Akika Parker, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action on August 15, 

2016. (ECF No. 1.)1

 On October 12, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s amended motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed her complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 5.) 

Plaintiff was given 28 days to file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal 

of the action. (Id.) Additionally, plaintiff was expressly cautioned that failure to file either an 

amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by the required deadline may result in 

dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.) 

After plaintiff failed to file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal 

by the required deadline, the court considered whether the action should be dismissed. 

 

1

 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:16-cv-01926-GEB-KJN Document 9 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status and the court’s desire to resolve the action on the 

merits, the court first attempted lesser sanctions by issuing an order to show cause and, given that 

plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, imposing minimal monetary sanctions. More 

specifically, in a November 22, 2016 order, the court directed plaintiff, within 21 days, to: (1) pay 

the Clerk of Court $100.00 in monetary sanctions for failure to comply with the court’s order; 

(2) show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order 

and failure to prosecute the case; and (3) file a first amended complaint in compliance with the 

court’s October 12, 2016 order. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was again cautioned that failure to 

comply with all terms of the order would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Although that new deadline has now long passed, plaintiff failed to pay the monetary 

sanctions, failed to respond to the order to show cause, and again failed to file a first amended 

complaint. Therefore, at this juncture, the court finds that dismissal of the action is appropriate. 

Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 

with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 

any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney 

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 

persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 

Rules. 

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district 

court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or 

fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local 

rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act 

Case 2:16-cv-01926-GEB-KJN Document 9 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 5
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

sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 

for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with 

any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and 

may impose sanctions including dismissal or default). 

 A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 

prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local 

rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the 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 

the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 

on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 

Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Ghazali, 46 

F.3d at 53. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that “[t]hese factors are not a series of 

conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a way for a district judge to think 

about what to do.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 

(9th Cir. 2006). 

Here, the first two Ferdik factors strongly support dismissal. Plaintiff’s repeated failure to 

comply with the court’s orders and deadlines suggests that plaintiff is not interested in seriously 

prosecuting the action, and/or does not take her obligations to the court and defendants seriously.2 

 

2

 Although the court’s October 12, 2016 and November 22, 2016 orders have not thus far been 

returned as undeliverable, the court notes that at least one prior order was returned as 

undeliverable. Nevertheless, it is plaintiff’s obligation to keep the court informed of her current 

address, and service of the court’s orders at the address on record was effective absent the filing 

of a notice of change of address. In relevant part, Local Rule 182(f) provides: “Each appearing 

attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any 

Case 2:16-cv-01926-GEB-KJN Document 9 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Therefore, any further time spent by the court on this case will consume scarce judicial resources 

and take away from other active cases. 

The third Ferdik factor, prejudice to a defendant, also slightly favors dismissal. To be 

sure, defendants have not yet appeared in the action, but plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in 

prosecuting this action cannot be said to be without consequences. With the passage of time, 

evidence becomes stale and/or unavailable, making it more difficult to assess a case and mount a 

potentially viable defense. 

The fifth Ferdik factor, which considers the availability of less drastic measures, also 

supports dismissal of this action. As noted above, the court has actually pursued remedies that 

are less drastic than dismissal by issuing an order to show cause and imposing minimal monetary 

sanctions, providing an additional opportunity to file an amended complaint, and clearly warning 

plaintiff of the consequences of failing to comply with the court’s orders. However, plaintiff 

entirely failed to respond to the court’s order, and did not even request an extension of time to 

comply. At this juncture, the court finds no suitable alternative to recommending dismissal of the 

action. Plaintiff has already failed to pay minimal monetary sanctions; she would likely be 

unable to pay increased monetary sanctions given her financial status; and, based on the limited 

record before the court at this stage of the proceedings, the court also cannot properly fashion any 

issue or evidentiary sanctions. 

The court recognizes the importance of giving due weight to the fourth Ferdik factor, 

which addresses the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits. However, the 

fourth Ferdik factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors. Indeed, it is plaintiff’s own failure 

to comply with court orders that precludes a disposition on the merits. 

Therefore, after carefully evaluating and weighing the Ferdik factors, the court concludes 

that dismissal is appropriate. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

 

change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, 

service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.” 

Case 2:16-cv-01926-GEB-KJN Document 9 Filed 12/28/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

41(b). 

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 

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 fourteen (14) 

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 on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: December 27, 2016 

 

 

Case 2:16-cv-01926-GEB-KJN Document 9 Filed 12/28/16 Page 5 of 5