Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01432/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01432-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

JEANLOUISE HALLAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEATHER MARDEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT 

ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jeanlouise Hallal, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 26, 2016. The complaint was 

screened and on November 2, 2016, an order issued dismissing the complaint for failure to state 

a claim. Plaintiff was provided with the relevant legal standards and was ordered to file an 

amended complaint within thirty days. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed 

to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s November 2, 2016 order. 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to involuntarily dismiss an 

action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the action or fails to comply with a court order. Fed. R. 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 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

Civ. P. 41(b). 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 imposition by the Court of any 

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power 

to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

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 to file an amended 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. United States Postal Serv., 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 comply with a pretrial order, 

the Court must weigh “(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.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 

(9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in 

deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. 

Id. (citation omitted).

III.

DISCUSSION

In this instance the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff was ordered to file 

an amended complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within thirty days 

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 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

of November 2, 2016. Plaintiff has been provided with the legal standards that would apply to 

her claims and the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has neither filed an 

amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the orders of the Court hinders the Court’s ability to move this action towards disposition, 

and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to diligently litigate this action.

Since it appears that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently there arises a 

rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants in this action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 

1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). This risk of prejudice may be rebutted if Plaintiff offers an excuse for 

the delay. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1453. Since Plaintiff has not diligently pursued this action, the 

risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

The public policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move this action forward. This 

action can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at 

issue, and the action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. In this 

instance, the fourth factor does not outweigh Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

Finally, a court’s warning to a party that their failure to obey the court’s order will result 

in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s November 2, 2016 order 

requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint expressly stated: “If Plaintiff does not file an 

amended complaint in compliance with this order this action shall be dismissed for failure to comply 

with a court order.” (ECF No. 11 at 10.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 

would result from her noncompliance with the Court’s order and her failure to state a claim.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED, with 

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a court order. 

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

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 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

(14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court. 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). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the district judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01432-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 4