Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01124/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01124-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GAIL LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01124-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(Doc. 17) 

Plaintiff Doyle Wayne Davis (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 9,

2006, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to (1)

complete and return the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents, and a completed summons and USM-285 form for each

defendant listed, and (2) provide ten copies of the endorsed

complaint, within thirty days from the date of service of that

order. The thirty-day period has passed, and plaintiff has

failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s order.

//

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/02/06 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

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 (9 Cir. 1986). A th

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 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance th

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 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with th

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 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

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/02/06 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

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. 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 (9 Cir. th

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 court’s

order of June 9, 2006, expressly stated: “The failure to comply

with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that

dismissal would result from non-compliance with the court’s

order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to

obey the court’s order of June 9, 2006.

//

/

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/02/06 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

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 twenty

(20) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the

court. Such a 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 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: August 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01124-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 08/02/06 Page 4 of 4