Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00184-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

BRADFORD McATHUR, CASE NO. CV F 06-0184 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

CITY OF TAFT POLICE DEPARTMENT,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Bradford McAthur (“plaintiff”) was a state prisoner and proceeds pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983"). Plaintiff proceeds with his

form amended complaint (“complaint”) against defendants Taft City police officers Williams (Badge

No. 27) (“Officer Williams”) and Kinney (“Officer Kinney”). This Court’s May 22, 2006 order (“May

22 order”) required plaintiff, no later than June 7, 2006, to complete and submit to this Court’s clerk

documents forservice of the summons and amended complaint on Officers Williams and Kinney. The

May 22 order admonished: “Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in

recommendation to dismiss this action.” (Bold in original.) Plaintiff has failed to submit the required

Case 1:06-cv-00184-AWI -LJO Document 27 Filed 06/09/06 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

documents to comply with the May 22 order. 

DISCUSSION

Failure To Comply With Orders

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 comply with a court order or local rules

or for 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’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as plaintiff has not advanced this

action with his unexplained failure to submit documents for service of the summons and amended

complaint to comply with the May 22 order. 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

Case 1:06-cv-00184-AWI -LJO Document 27 Filed 06/09/06 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

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 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. The May 22 order

admonished: “Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in recommendation to dismiss

this action.” (Bold in original.) Thus, plaintiff received adequate warning that dismissal will result

from noncompliance with this Court’s order and failure to prosecute this action. Quite simply, plaintiff

has failed to comply with this Court’s order or to meaningfully and intelligently respond.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

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

plaintiff has failed to: (1) submit documents for service of the summons and amended complaint; (2)

comply with this Court’s order; and (3) diligently prosecute this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than June 22, 2006,

plaintiff may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on 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 judge will then review the

magistrate judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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: June 9, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00184-AWI -LJO Document 27 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 3