Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00711-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMOND MIMS, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-CV-00711-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

On October 4, 2006, this Court issued an Order adopting the Findings and

Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis and require Plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action within ten (10) days of the

date of service of the order. The ten (10) day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not paid the

filing fee or otherwise responded 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

Case 1:06-cv-00711-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 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

2

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 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. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;

Case 1:06-cv-00711-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Findings and Recommendations issued

by the Magistrate Judge informed Plaintiff that he would be required to tender the filing fee in full

before the Court would proceeding with his case. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that the

Court would not proceed without his payment of the filing fee. 

To date, Plaintiff has not filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations and

also did not submit the filing fee in full. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee as directed by

the Court by Order dated October 4, 2006. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in accordance with this Order.

This Order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00711-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 3