Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01488/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01488-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS PIKE DOYLE, SR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

MADERA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:19-cv-01488-NONE-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND OBEY THE 

COURT’S ORDERS

(Docs. 2, 3)

OBJECTIONS DUE: 14 DAYS

On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants, but 

failed to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 1.) The 

Court entered an order on October 23, 2019, directing Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 2.) 

That order also warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply . . . will result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed.” (Id.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the October 23, 2019, order by the 

deadline and has not complied with the order to date. 

On December 2, 2019, the Court entered an order to show cause directing Plaintiff to show 

cause why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the October 23, 2019,

Case 1:19-cv-01488-NONE-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/05/20 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

order. (Doc. 3.) The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he did not respond to the order to show 

cause, the Court would “recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be 

dismissed, in its entirety.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause by the 

deadline and has not filed a response to date.1 

DISCUSSION

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 the imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose 

sanctions, including, where appropriate . . . dismissal.” 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); 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local 

rule requiring pro se plaintiff to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 

833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (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 prosecute and failure to 

comply with local rules); Lopez v. Chase Home Fin., No. CVF09-0449 LJOGSA, 2009 WL 

1098760, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2009) (dismissal of certain defendants for failure to comply 

with court).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order or failure to 

comply with the Local Rules, the court must consider several factors, including: “(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; 

1 The Clerk mailed the December 2, 2019 order to Plaintiff, but the order was returned as undeliverable on January 10, 

2020. (See Docket.) On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, and the Clerk updated his address 

on the docket to “AZ-7224, North Kern State Prison (5004), P.O. Box 5004, Delano, CA 93216-9022.” (See Doc. 5.) 

On January 13, 2020, the Clerk re-served Plaintiff with the order to show cause at his new address, (see Docket), and 

the deadline to comply with the order has now passed.

Case 1:19-cv-01488-NONE-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/05/20 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

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423–24; see also Ferdik, 

963 F.2d at 1260–61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution 

of litigation always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)).

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, as it appears Plaintiff lacks 

interest in pursuing this case. 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 the failure 

to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 

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

The October 23, 2019, order warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply . . . will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.” (Doc. 2.) The December 2, 2019, order to show 

cause warned Plaintiff that if he did not respond to the order to show cause, the Court would 

“recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.” (Doc. 

3 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the 

case, would result from his noncompliance with the order to show cause. Plaintiff has shown a 

lack of concern for the Court’s orders and a complete lack of interest in prosecuting the case. 

In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to Local Rule 110 and the Court’s inherent sanction 

authority, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s orders of October 

23, 2019, (Doc. 2), and December 2, 2019, (Doc. 3), and Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case. 

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff at his address 

listed on the docket for this matter.

Case 1:19-cv-01488-NONE-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/05/20 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14) 

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings and 

recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge 

will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01488-NONE-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/05/20 Page 4 of 4