Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00070-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO LERMA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

R. MENDOZA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:06-cv-00070-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

(Doc. 33) 

Plaintiff Leo Lerma (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2007, the court issued

an order requiring plaintiff to file a third amended complaint within

thirty days from the date of service of that order. The thirty-day

period has passed, and plaintiff has failed to comply with or

otherwise respond to the court’s order.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00070-AWI -SMS Document 34 Filed 04/11/07 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

2

that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate .

. . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829,

831 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, th

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 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for th

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order th

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule th

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 th

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,

Case 1:06-cv-00070-AWI -SMS Document 34 Filed 04/11/07 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

3

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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy th

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. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at

132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order of February

23, 2007, expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to file a third

amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court will

recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for

failure to obey a court order.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning

that dismissal would result from non-compliance with the court’s

order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the

court’s order of February 23, 2007.

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 twenty (20) 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

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00070-AWI -SMS Document 34 Filed 04/11/07 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

4

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00070-AWI -SMS Document 34 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 4