Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01389/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01389-1/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

TERRENCE WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01389-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY 

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Terrence White is former state prisoner and current parolee proceeding pro se in 

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

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on November 13, 2024. (Doc. 1.) 

Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 

(Doc. 2.) 

On November 15, 2024, this Court issued its Order Directing Plaintiff to Clarify and 

Complete His Responses to Questions 2 and 3(f) in the Application to Proceed In District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff was directed to respond within 14 days of the 

date of the order. (Id. at 3.) More than 14 days have passed without a response.

Case 1:24-cv-01389-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/10/24 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

II. DISCUSSION

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, 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 sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 

1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s November 15, 2024, order. Plaintiff was 

ordered to clarify his response to Question 2 and to complete his response to Question 3(f) of his 

application to proceed without prepaying of fees or costs. (Doc. 4.) More than 14 days have 

passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a written response. The Court cannot effectively manage its 

docket if Plaintiff ignores the Court’s orders. This case cannot move forward without the ability 

to determinate whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee 

for this action. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors—the public’s interest in 

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. 

Case 1:24-cv-01389-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/10/24 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

Next, while the risk of prejudice to defendants is a lesser factor here because the named 

defendants have not appeared in the action, a presumption of harm or 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). Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s order seeking clarification and 

completion of his request to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees is an unreasonable 

delay in prosecuting this action. Therefore, the Court finds the third factor—a risk of prejudice to 

defendants—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 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff is failing to move this case forward by not complying with the 

Court’s November 15, 2024, order to provide the information necessary for a determination of 

whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed without prepaying the required filing fee. Thus, the Court 

finds the fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition on the 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 order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Here, the Court’s First Informational 

Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case advised, in relevant part: “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.” (Doc. 3 at 1.) Plaintiff was advised that “all Court deadlines 

are strictly enforced.” (Id. at 5.) Next, when the Court directed Plaintiff to clarify and complete 

his responses on his application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs, Plaintiff was 

advised that a “[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this 

Case 1:24-cv-01389-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/10/24 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

action be dismissed, without prejudice, for a failure to obey court orders.” (Doc. 4 at 3, 

emphasis in original.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 

noncompliance with court orders. Moreover, at this stage of the proceedings, there is little 

available to the Court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Therefore, the fifth factor—

the availability of less drastic sanctions—weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district 

judge to this action. Further, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 

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 fifteen (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 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 fifteen (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 9, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01389-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/10/24 Page 4 of 4