Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00243/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00243-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

MARVIN R. WHITMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORIE J. CARAWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-CV-0243-TLN-DMC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. On May 21, 2020, the 

Court directed plaintiff to file a scheduling conference statement by June 10, 2020. To date, 

plaintiff has not complied. A review of the docket also reflects that, to date, plaintiff has failed to 

effect service of process on any defendant. 

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 

Case 2:20-cv-00243-TLN-DMC Document 8 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 2
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

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an 

order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992).

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file a 

scheduling conference statement or effect service of process, the Court finds that dismissal of this 

action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 

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 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 12, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00243-TLN-DMC Document 8 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 2