Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00122-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

AMANDA C. GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00122-AWI-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF THIS 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A 

COURT ORDER

Plaintiff Amanda C. Gomez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

initiated this civil action on January 26, 2016. (Doc. 1). On February 12, 2016, the Court issued 

an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim. The Court 

directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from service of the 

order. (Doc. 6). More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with this 

Court’s order.

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 

Case 1:16-cv-00122-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 03/24/16 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

27

28

2

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 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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 

130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

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 because 

there is no indication that Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action. The third factor, risk of 

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 

from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 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. Finally, a court’s warning to a party 

that her failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

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

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint was clear that 

dismissal would result from non-compliance with the Court’s order. (Doc. 6 at 5).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

Case 1:16-cv-00122-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 03/24/16 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

27

28

3

DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The 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 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) 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00122-AWI-BAM Document 8 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 3