Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02017/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02017-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONNIE HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAT MCCRORY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2017-GEB-KJN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Connie Hill, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action on September 

24, 2015, and paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) That same day, the court issued an “Order Setting 

Status Conference.” (ECF No. 3.) The order directed plaintiff to “complete service of process on 

defendants named in the complaint within 120 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is 

cautioned that this action may be dismissed if service of process is not accomplished within 120 

days from the date that the complaint is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).” (Id. at 1.)

That same order set a status (pre-trial scheduling) conference for January 28, 2016, at 

10:00 a.m., and stated that “[a]ll parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without 

counsel.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The order also directed the parties to file a status report addressing 

specific topics no later than seven (7) days prior to the status conference. (Id. at 2-3.) The order 

specifically cautioned that “[f]ailing to obey federal or local rules, or [an] order of this court, may 

Case 2:15-cv-02017-GEB-KJN Document 6 Filed 02/29/16 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

result in dismissal of this action. This court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, but pro se 

litigants must comply with the procedural rules.” (Id. at 3.)

No status report was filed prior to the status conference, and plaintiff also failed to appear 

at the status conference as ordered. Additionally, no defendant has yet appeared in this case, and 

there has been no docket activity by plaintiff since the complaint was filed. Such inactivity 

strongly suggests that plaintiff has not yet served defendants with process, even though the 120-

day period for service of process has now expired.

Based on plaintiff’s numerous failures, the court considered whether the action should be 

dismissed. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status and the court’s general preference to 

resolve actions on their merits, the court first attempted lesser sanctions in the form of an order to 

show cause and monetary sanctions. More specifically, on January 29, 2016, the court ordered 

plaintiff, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s prior orders, failure to appear at 

the status conference, and failure to prosecute the case, to: (1) pay the Clerk of Court $250.00 in 

monetary sanctions; and (2) show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) no later than 14 days from the date of that

order. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that failure to timely comply with the 

order would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.)

Although the applicable deadline has now passed, plaintiff failed to pay the monetary

sanctions and failed to respond to the order to show cause. Therefore, the court recommends 

dismissal at this juncture.

Eastern District 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.” 

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney 

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 

persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 

Case 2:15-cv-02017-GEB-KJN Document 6 Filed 02/29/16 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

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 

Rules.

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). A district 

court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or 

fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local 

rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act 

sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 

for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with 

any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and

may impose sanctions including dismissal or default). 

A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 

prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court’s local 

rules. See, e.g., Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260. Specifically, the court must consider:

(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.

Id. at 1260-61; accord Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Ghazali, 46 

F.3d at 53. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that “[t]hese factors are not a series of 

conditions precedent before the judge can do anything, but a way for a district judge to think 

about what to do.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 

Case 2:15-cv-02017-GEB-KJN Document 6 Filed 02/29/16 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

(9th Cir. 2006). 

Although involuntary dismissal can be a harsh remedy, on balance the five relevant 

factors weigh in favor of dismissal here. The first two Ferdik factors strongly support dismissal, 

given that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and failure to prosecute her case

have unreasonably delayed the progress of this litigation. The third Ferdik factor also favors 

dismissal. Although the defendants have not yet appeared in the case, they have been named in a 

civil action, and plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case has hampered defendants’ ability to move 

this case forward towards resolution. 

Additionally, the fifth Ferdik factor, which considers the availability of less drastic 

measures, also supports dismissal. As noted above, the court has already attempted less drastic 

sanctions – monetary sanctions and the issuance of an order to show cause – prior to 

recommending dismissal. However, plaintiff ultimately failed to pay the sanctions and failed to 

respond to the order to show cause. Furthermore, the court finds no suitable alternative to 

dismissal at this juncture. Given plaintiff’s complete failure to respond to the court’s prior orders 

and instructions, the imposition of further monetary sanctions would be futile, and the court is 

unable to frame any meaningful issue or evidentiary sanctions based on the limited record before 

it. 

Finally, the court finds that the fourth Ferdik factor, which addresses the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on the merits, does not materially counsel against dismissal. If 

anything, a disposition on the merits has been hindered by plaintiff’s own failure to comply with 

the court’s orders and prosecute her case. In any event, the court finds that the fourth Ferdik

factor is outweighed by the other Ferdik factors.

Consequently, dismissal is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b).

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to vacate all dates and close this case.

////

Case 2:15-cv-02017-GEB-KJN Document 6 Filed 02/29/16 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

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)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

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 on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: February 29, 2016

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02017-GEB-KJN Document 6 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 5