Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00767-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DURNYA, CASE NO. CV F 06-0767 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

DEPT. OF CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

On June 16, 2006, pro se plaintiff John Durnya (“plaintiff”) filed with this Court his Application

to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (“application”) to request to proceed without

prepayment of the $350 filing fee or costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s application indicates that

plaintiff is not poverty stricken and has more than $20,000 in assets.

This Court’s June 19, 2006 order denied plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment

of fees and required plaintiff, no later than July 3, 2006, to pay the $350 filing fee. The order

admonished plaintiff “that this Court will take no action regarding his claims until he pays the $350

filing fee and that this Court will dismiss this action if plaintiff fails to timely comply with this

order.”

Plaintiff failed to timely comply with the order to pay the filing fee.

Case 1:06-cv-00767-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 07/05/06 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

BACKGROUND

Disobedience Of Order

This Court’s 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 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 obey a court order or 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

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

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

local rules or lack of prosecution, a 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 defendant; (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 1260-1261; 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’sinterest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as plaintiff has not advanced this

action with his unexplained failure to pay the filing fee. 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, a court’s warning to a party that his failure

Case 1:06-cv-00767-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 07/05/06 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

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

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. This Court’s

June 19, 2006 order admonished plaintiff “that this Court will take no action regarding his claims

until he pays the $350 filing fee and that this Court will dismiss this action if plaintiff fails to

timely comply with this order.” (Bold in original.) Thus, plaintiff received adequate warnings that

dismissal would result from noncompliance with this Court’s order and failure to pay the filing fee and

to prosecute this action. Quite simply, plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order and to

meaningfully and intelligently respond to it.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS to DISMISS this action without prejudice on grounds

that plaintiff has disobeyed this Court’s order to pay the filing fee and has failed to meaningfully and

intelligently respond to the order and to prosecute this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned

to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than July

17, 2006, plaintiff may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties and the

magistrate judge in compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district court will

then review the magistrate judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is 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: July 5, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00767-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 3