Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06712/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06712-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK A. HAZELTINE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TUOLUMNE COUNTY BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

Case No. 1:04-cv-06712 LJO JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THIS ACTION BE

DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed August 31, 2010, the Court directed Plaintiff to, within

thirty days, either file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in its

screening order or notify the Court that he wished to proceed only against Defendants Carroll,

Giannini, and Lackey for the alleged use of excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in

a recommendation that his action be dismissed. (Doc. 16) The thirty-day period expired, and

Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order.

On November 30, 2010, the Court issued an order (Doc. 18) directing Plaintiff, within

twenty-one days, to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Once again, the Court advised Plaintiff that if he wished to proceed with

the action, he must either file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

1

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 19 Filed 01/05/11 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

in its August 31, 2010 screening order or notify the Court that he wished to proceed only on the

claims found cognizable by the Court in its screening order. Plaintiff was firmly cautioned, once

again, that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed. (Doc. 18 at 2) Nevertheless, the twenty-one day period has expired and again

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order.

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

authorized by statute or Rule or 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 the case.” Thompson v. Housing Authority,

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s th

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to complywith local rules. See,

e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local th

rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply th

with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. th

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 (9 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for th

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, including: (1)

the public’s interest in expeditiousresolution 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

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9 Cir. 1986); Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at th

1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

With respect to the first two factors – the public’s interest in expeditiouslyresolving litigation

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket – the Court finds these factors indicate that dismissal

is appropriate and warranted. The case has been pending for more than six years. Now when it is

2

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 19 Filed 01/05/11 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

ready to proceed, Plaintiff has absented himself from the process and refuses to take the necessary

steps to prosecute his claims.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because

a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9 Cir. 1976). In part due to the Court’s crushing case th

load, this matter has been pending since 2004. However, for more than a year, this Court has turned

its attention to Plaintiff’s case and, by all accounts, Plaintiff has abandoned his responsibility to this

matter. The Court has attempted to prompt Plaintiff into action with its orders, most notably its

Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 18) However, Plaintiff has failed to respond to those orders in any

fashion. Under these facts, the Court finds Plaintiff’s delay in prosecution of this action is

unreasonable.

Alternatives, less drastic than dismissal, do not appear to be realistic. Because Plaintiff is

proceeding in forma pauperis, monetary sanctions are not a viable option. Likewise, given the

historyof this case, the Court has little confidence that anotherwarning or further admonitions would

result in Plaintiff taking action. The Court has already warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond

would result in the dismissal of this action but they have not spurred Plaintiff into action. (Docs. 1

16, 18). In fact, Plaintiff has failed to have any contact with the Court whatsoever. The Court finds

that, under the circumstances of the present case, there is no reasonable alternative to dismissal.

The Court recognizes that public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits and has

factored this consideration into its decision. However, securing a disposition on the merits in this

case will likely come only at a price that substantially compromises the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of this litigation, the Court’s interest in managing its docket and Defendant’s

interest in a legal process free from unreasonable delay. Consequently, the Court finds that this

factor – public policy favoring disposition on the merits – is greatly outweighed by the other factors

favoring dismissal of this action.

 The Court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the Court’s order is sufficient to satisfy the

1

“consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779

F.2d at 1424.

3

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 19 Filed 01/05/11 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

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)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

twenty-one days after being served with 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: January 5, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 19 Filed 01/05/11 Page 4 of 4