Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00039-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY G. GARCIA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et )

al., )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-CV-00039-OWW-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FOLLOW THE

COURT’S ORDER, AND PAY THE

$250.00 FILING FEE OR FILE A

COMPLETED APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff is a party proceeding pro se with a civil rights

action. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on January 10, 2005, at a

time when Plaintiff was a state prisoner. On January 10, 2005,

Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was

incomplete because the certificate portion of the application was

blank and did not bear the signature of an authorized officer.

Further, Plaintiff failed to submit a certified trust account

statement covering the entire six-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint on January 10, 2005. See 28

Case 1:05-cv-00039-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/17/05 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

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). On January 24, 2005, the Court granted

Plaintiff thirty days in which either to pay the filing fee or to

submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On

February 3, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis which contained the needed certificate of an authorized

officer, dated January 28, 2005, indicating that Plaintiff’s

average monthly balance and deposits were $20.00.

However, Plaintiff’s new application still did not contain a

certified copy of his trust account statement covering the full

six-month period before the filing of the complaint. Therefore,

on March 22, 2005, Plaintiff was ordered to file a complete

application, including the certified trust account statement, or

pay the $250.00 filing fee; the order was served on March 22,

2205. On the same date, Plaintiff filed a change of address that

indicated that Plaintiff’s new address was a non-custodial site.

The order served at Plaintiff’s prison address was ultimately

returned on April 1, 2005, indicating that Plaintiff had been

paroled.

In view of the change in Plaintiff’s custodial status, on

March 28, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a completed

application to proceed in forma pauperis for a person not

incarcerated, or to pay the filing fee within thirty days of

service of the order. This order was served on Plaintiff at the

out-of-custody address reflected in the Court’s docket on March

28, 2005. Over thirty days have passed since the issuance of this

order, but Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further,

Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time.

Case 1:05-cv-00039-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/17/05 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

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 the 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 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. 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

failure to 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

Case 1:05-cv-00039-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/17/05 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

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. 

In this case, 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 the case

has been pending since January 2005. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal

because 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 -- the

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 to

obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the

“consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee 

expressly stated that a failure of Plaintiff to comply with the

order would result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed. Thus, Plaintiff received adequate warning that

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s

order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Case 1:05-cv-00039-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/17/05 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

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to

the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty 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 and filed within ten 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00039-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 05/17/05 Page 5 of 5