Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01018/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01018-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1018 RRB GGH PS

vs.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

RON POWELL, 

Defendants.

 /

Since defendants’ removal of this wrongful termination case from state court on

May 29, 2007, plaintiff has not participated in this action. Plaintiff has filed no documents in

this court and did not appear at the August 2, 2007 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss. By

order filed August 7, 2007, this court directed plaintiff to file an opposition to defendants’

motion to dismiss within ten days, and warned plaintiff that failure to do so would result in a

recommendation this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for failure

to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders operates as adjudication on merits). Plaintiff

has not responded in any way. 

Although the court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants, they are

required to adhere to the rules of court. As set forth in this court’s prior order, failure to appear

Case 2:07-cv-01018-RRB-GGH Document 22 Filed 09/05/07 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

2

at a scheduled hearing may be deemed not only withdrawal of opposition to a motion and but

grounds for sanctions. E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(j). More broadly, failure to comply with the

Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition . . . of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or

Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110; see also E. D. Cal. L.

R. 83-183 (requiring compliance with the Local and Federal Rules by pro se litigants).

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The court should 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 sanctions. Similar considerations authorize

dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Link v. Wabash

R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Moreover, failure to obey court orders is a separate and distinct ground for imposing the sanction

of dismissal. See Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

(setting forth same factors for consideration as Ghazali). 

The court has considered the factors set forth in Ghazali. “[T]he key factors are

prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th

Cir.1990). Defendants are clearly prejudiced by the requirement of defending an abandoned

case, and this court is put in the untenable position of expending limited judicial resources to

decide such a case on the merits. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the

court’s need to manage its docket, and the unsuitability of a less drastic sanction, direct that this

case be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED this action be dismissed with prejudice

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

These findings and recommendations are 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 ten

Case 2:07-cv-01018-RRB-GGH Document 22 Filed 09/05/07 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

3

(10) 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 (10) 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).

DATED: : 9/5/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5:Robin1018.f&r.dism

Case 2:07-cv-01018-RRB-GGH Document 22 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 3