Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00067/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00067-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL MERCADO ULLOA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

RAYMOND D. ANDREWS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED

(Doc. 9)

Plaintiff, Samuel Mercado Ulloa (“plaintiff”), is a prisoner

in federal custody proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action apparently pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

By order filed April 1, 2005, the court found that plaintiff’s

complaint failed to state any claims for relief against the named

defendants. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and ordered

plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. More than thirty days have

passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or

otherwise responded to the court's order. 

Case 1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 05/19/05 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 (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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 05/19/05 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

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 (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 court’s order of April 1, 2005, requiring

plaintiff to file an amended complaint, expressly stated:

“...failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to state

a claim and failure to comply with the court’s order.” Thus,

plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

non-compliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of

April 1, 2005, and for the reasons set forth therein, namely, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 05/19/05 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: May 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00067-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 05/19/05 Page 4 of 4