Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01471/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01471-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

DARYL LEON HANSON, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

GEORGE W. BUSH, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1471-OWW-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER

OF THE COURT TO PAY THE $350.00

FILING FEE OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, TO FILE A COMPLETE

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 3)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on October 20, 2006. However, Plaintiff did not complete

the application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court ordered

Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or, in the alternative, to file a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than

twenty days after the date of service of the order. The order was

served on Plaintiff by mail on November 2, 2006. On November 11,

2006, the Court’s docket, of which the Court takes judicial

Case 1:06-cv-01471-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 12/22/06 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

2

notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) and United States v.

Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir. 1999), reflects that th

the order was returned to the court as undeliverable, homeless,

not at this address. However, the Court notes that pursuant to

Local Rule 83-182(f), absent a notice of change of address,

service of documents at the prior address of a party or an

attorney shall be fully effective.

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 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

Case 1:06-cv-01471-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 12/22/06 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

3

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 this 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 the case

has been pending since October 2006. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal

because 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 -- the

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 Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee 

expressly stated that a failure of Plaintiff to pay the filing

fee would result in a recommendation that the action be

Case 1:06-cv-01471-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 12/22/06 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

4

dismissed. Thus, Plaintiff received adequate warning that

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s

order.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order.

These findings and recommendations are 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 thirty 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 and filed within ten 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01471-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 12/22/06 Page 4 of 4