Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00430-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN M. COLLINS, JAY & ANDREW

YOUNT FAMILY PRESERVATION

SOCIETY, INC., and JAY DEE YOUNT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF MADERA, CALIFORNIA,

DENNIS WRIGHT, KENNY SHOETTLER

and WILLIE HIBDON,

Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:10-cv-00430 AWI GSA 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

(Document 9)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Lynn M. Collins and Jay D. Yount, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma

pauperis, and the Jay & Andrew Yount Family Preservation Society, Inc. (“YFPSI”) for whom

status remains uncertain, filed a first amended complaint on April 12, 2010, after initial screening

of the original complaint by the Court. (Doc. 4; see also Doc. 1.) On May 19, 2010, the

magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending dismissal of certain

1

Case 1:10-cv-00430-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 08/06/10 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

claims without leave to amend, and dismissal of others with leave to amend. Plaintiffs were

provided thirty (30) days within which to (1) file a second amended complaint and (2) address

the legal representation status of YFPSI. (Doc. 8.) No objections were filed. 

On June 29, 2010, this Court issued an Order Adopting the Findings and

Recommendations in full. More particularly, Plaintiffs’ claims pertaining to California’s Brown

Act, California Civil Code section 1573 and Title 18 of the United States Code sections 241, 242

and 245 were dismissed without leave to amend, and the remaining claims were dismissed with

leave to amend. Plaintiffs were ordered to file a third amended complaint no later than thirty

(30) days from the date of service of the Order. (Doc. 9.) As of this date, a third amended

complaint has not been filed with this Court.

DISCUSSION

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 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power 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

2

Case 1:10-cv-00430-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 08/06/10 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

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, as this case

has been pending since March 10, 2010, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs intend to

prosecute this action. 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; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The June 29, 2010, order

requiring Plaintiffs to amend their complaint expressly stated: “Plaintiffs are also advised that if

they fail to timely file an amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to

follow the Court’s order and diligently prosecute this action." (Doc. 9 at 3.) Thus, Plaintiffs

have had adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s

order. 

//

//

//

//

3

Case 1:10-cv-00430-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 08/06/10 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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED for

Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a court order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 5, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4

Case 1:10-cv-00430-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 08/06/10 Page 4 of 4