Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00521-9/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

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

CHRISTOPHER EVAN VANDERWERFF,

Plaintiff,

 v.

K. ALLISON, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-00521-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Evan Vanderwerff (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated 

this action on February 13, 2013. 

On June 9, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for failure to 

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 and other pleading deficiencies. The Court 

granted Plaintiff leave to amend with thirty (30) days from the date of service. Plaintiff was 

warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the order, this action 

would be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 28.) The deadline for Plaintiff to 

file his second amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise 

responded to the Court’s order. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 . . . 

within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 

Case 1:13-cv-00521-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

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); Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 

779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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. This action has been 

pending since February 2013. Plaintiff has made no attempt to contact the Court or otherwise 

comply with the Court’s June 2015 order. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting 

such compliance by Plaintiff. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, 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, the court’s warning to 

a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations 

of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 

779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order issued on June 9, 2015, expressly stated “If Plaintiff fails to 

file a second [amended] complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed 

for failure to obey a court order.” (ECF No. 28, p. 15.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 

that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Case 1:13-cv-00521-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s June 9, 2015 order. 

These findings and recommendations will be 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 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The 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 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00521-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 3