Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00441-5/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

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

DAVID FALLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. ARREDONDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00441-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

(ECF Nos. 10, 13, 16)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff David Falls is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

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

I.

INTRODUCTION

On August 26, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 

stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Arredondo, in his individual capacity, for excessive 

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims 

against any other defendants. (ECF No. 10.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first 

amended complaint or notify the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the 

cognizable claims, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the order. (Id.) Further, 

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 18 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff was expressly warned that, if he failed to comply with the Court’s order, the Court would 

recommend to a District Judge that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to 

obey a court order. (Id. at 12.)

Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint, notify the Court in writing of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court, or otherwise 

communicate with the Court within the allotted time. Therefore, on October 29, 2019, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with the Court’s August 26, 2019 screening order and failure to prosecute, 

within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 11.)

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a written response to the Court’s order to show 

cause. (ECF No. 12.) 

On November 27, 2019, the Court vacated the October 29, 2019 order to show cause and 

granted Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) 

Further, the Court’s November 27, 2019 order again expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to 

comply with the order would result in a recommendation to a District Judge that this action be 

dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2-3.)

Plaintiff again did not file a first amended complaint, notify the Court in writing of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court, or otherwise 

communicate with the Court within the allotted time. Therefore, on January 6, 2020, the Court 

issued a second order requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s August 26, 2019 and November 26, 

2019 orders and failure to prosecute, within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the 

order. (ECF No. 14.)

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 15-day extension of time to file a first 

amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.)

On January 17, 2020, the Court vacated the January 6, 2020 order to show cause and 

granted Plaintiff a 15-day extension of time to either file a first amended complaint or a notice of 

his intent to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court in its August 26, 2019 

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 18 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 5
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

order. (ECF No. 16.) Further, the Court’s January 17, 2020 order again expressly warned 

Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation to a District 

Judge that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Id.

at 3.)

The deadline for Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or a notice of his intent 

to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court expired on February 4, 2020. To 

date, Plaintiff has not filed either a first amended complaint or a written notice of his intent to 

proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court in its August 26, 2019 order. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this action for the reasons discussed below.

II.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, the instant action has been pending since April 2019. Plaintiff was ordered to file 

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 18 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 5
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

either a first amended complaint or a written notice of his intent to proceed only on the cognizable 

claim identified by the Court, has received multiple extensions of time to do so, and has still 

failed to comply with the Court’s order by failing a first amended complaint or a written notice of 

his intent to proceed only on the cognizable claim. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance 

awaiting compliance by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to the 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 usually 

weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. 

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party 

whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct 

impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Additionally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will 

result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 26, 2019, 

November 27, 2019, and January 17, 2020 orders expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to 

comply with the Court’s orders would result in a recommendation to dismiss this action, with 

prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (ECF 

Nos. 17, 24.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 

noncompliance. 

Finally, at this stage in the proceedings, there is little available to the Court which would 

constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while also protecting the Court from further unnecessary 

expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, 

making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to 

have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

///

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 18 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

III.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 

Fresno District Judge to this action.

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

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s August 26, 2019, November 27, 2019, 

and January 17, 2020 orders, and failure to prosecute this action.

These findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 18 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 5