Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00324/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00324-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00324-CDB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS THIS ACTION FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY 

COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Saahdi Abdul Coleman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 6, 2024, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 7.) It determined 

Plaintiff had plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs claims against Defendants Bean, Crawford, Doe 1, Doe 2, McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and 

Vasquez, but failed to allege any other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. 

at 10-16.) Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of the date of service of 

the order: (1) to notify the Court in writing that he did not wish to file a first amended complaint 

and was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Bean, Crawford, Doe 1, Doe 2, 

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 5
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

McDaniel, Moore, Russell, and Vasquez, with the remaining claims against any defendant to be 

dismissed; or (2) to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the 

screening order; or (3) to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 18.) 

More than 21 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s 

screening order. 

II. DISCUSSION

Applicable Legal Standards

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 

be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 

or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 

to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 

of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 

order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 

required to weigh 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 

sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 

citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 

must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 

//

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint, or a notice he was willing to 

proceed on the cognizable claims, or a notice of voluntary dismissal, as ordered. Nor has Plaintiff 

otherwise been in contact with the Court. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with 

Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to obey 

orders and failure to prosecute this action. Thus, the first and second factors — the expeditious 

resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket — weigh in favor of dismissal.

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 

See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, the screening order directed 

Plaintiff to file a notice indicating he wished to proceed only on his cognizable claims, or to file a 

first amended complaint, or to file a notice of voluntary dismissal, within 21 days. Plaintiff has 

taken no action whatsoever. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the screening order, his 

inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this case resulting in a presumption of 

injury. Thus, the third factor — a risk of prejudice to the defendants — also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 

“this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 

disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He has 

failed to comply with this Court’s screening order and has stopped communicating with the 

Court. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders or rules will 

result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d 

at 1262. Here, the First Screening Order issued November 6, 2024, expressly warned: “If 

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend that this action be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey court order and for failure to prosecute.” 

(Doc. 7 at 18, emphasis in original.) Further, in the First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil 

Detainee Civil Rights Case issued March 6, 2023, Plaintiff was advised as follows: “In litigating 

this action, the parties must comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. 

R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California 

(“Local Rules”), as modified by this Order. Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition 

of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” 

(See Doc. 4 at 1.) That same order advised Plaintiff that “all Court deadlines are strictly 

enforced.” (Id. at 5.) Thus, the undersigned finds Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 

could result from his noncompliance with this Court’s orders. Thus, the fifth factor — the 

availability of less drastic sanctions —weighs in favor of dismissal. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s orders, and in doing so, has failed 

to prosecute this action. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with Court orders and to 

prosecute this action. 

III. CONCLUSION, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this 

action. 

Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court orders and to prosecute this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 

leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 

Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15- page limitation may be 

disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result 

in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 5