Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00320-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUNG YIL JO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIX UNKNOWN AGENTS, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO FILE 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE

(ECF No. 7)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a federal detainee proceeding pro se in this purported civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 13, 2014, the Court struck Plaintiff’s complaint because it was 

unsigned, and noted that the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 2.) 

Plaintiff was ordered to file a signed complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff simultaneously 

was ordered to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing fee 

for this action. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the 

action. (Id.)

Plaintiff appealed. (ECF Nos. 3 & 5.) His appeals were not processed by the Ninth 

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/23/15 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

Circuit Court of Appeals, and a search of the Ninth Circuit’s docket does not reveal any 

appeal by Plaintiff relating to the instant action. Presumably, Plaintiff’s appeal was not 

processed based on the Ninth Circuit’s May 13, 2014 order enjoining Plaintiff from filing 

further civil actions naming the same defendants and/or raising the same allegations as 

those in actions previously filed and dismissed in the district courts, and directing this 

court to reject any related notices of appeal. See In re: Young Yil Jo, No. 13-80149 (9th 

Cir. May 13, 2014).

The action has been pending for over a year without any operative complaint and 

without Plaintiff submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the 

applicable filing fee. Accordingly, on May 15, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 

cause why the action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not respond to 

the order to show cause.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure 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.” District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based 

on a party’s failure to prosecute, 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 a 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 a 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 lack of prosecution, failure to obey 

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/23/15 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

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 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 the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this 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, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff is likely 

unable to pay monetary sanctions, making such sanctions of little use.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to file an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the applicable filing fee.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) 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 fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/23/15 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

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: June 22, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00320-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 4