Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06241/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06241-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LELAND DRAPER, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

at al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-cv-6241-AWI-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH AN ORDER OF THE COURT, TO

PROSECUTE, AND TO STATE A CLAIM

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(DOCS. 1, 4)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner housed at the Fresno County

Jail who is proceeding pro se with an action for damages and

other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 30, 2004. On

September 15, 2006, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted, ordered the

complaint dismissed with leave to amend, and directed Plaintiff

to file an amended complaint no later than thirty days after the

date of service of the order. The order was served by mail on

Case 1:04-cv-06241-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 11/02/06 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

September 15, 2006. 

To date, more than thirty days have passed, but Plaintiff

has not filed the amended complaint, responded to the order to

show cause, or timely sought an extension of time in which either

to file the amended complaint or respond in regard to the failure

to do so. 

On September 25, 2006, the Court’s order dismissing the

complaint without leave to amend was returned as undeliverable; 

the correspondence reflected that Plaintiff was out of custody,

and to return to sender. Plaintiff has not filed with this Court

a change of address form as required by Local Rule 83-182(f),

which provides that absent such a notice of change of address,

service of documents at the prior address of the party shall be

fully effective.

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 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 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

Case 1:04-cv-06241-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 11/02/06 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

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 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 the case

has been pending since August 2004. 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

Case 1:04-cv-06241-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 11/02/06 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

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. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint expressly stated that a failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with that order would be considered to be

a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110 and would result in dismissal of the action. Thus,

Plaintiff received adequate warning that dismissal would result

from his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, with prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and to

prosecute, and, for the reasons stated in the Court’s order of

September 15, 2006, for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

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 thirty 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 ten days after

service of the objections. The parties are 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

Case 1:04-cv-06241-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 11/02/06 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

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06241-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 11/02/06 Page 5 of 5