Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00634/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00634-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

ANGEL ANGUIANO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-CV-00634 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

(FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE)

Plaintiff Angel Anguiano (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 5, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to pay filing fee or submit 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis within forty-five (45) days. The forty-five day 

period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application or otherwise responded to the 

Court's order. The Court notes that the order was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as 

“undeliverable – not in custody.”

Local Rule 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00634-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

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 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 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. 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 an 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, 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. 

Case 1:15-cv-00634-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s 

order expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.” 

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with 

the Court’s order.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based 

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of May 5, 2015. 

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 fourteen 

(14) days after date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” 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: July 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00634-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 3