Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02300/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02300-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORREST KENDRID,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-02300-CKD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 11, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41 and 37 based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has 

not opposed the motion.

On December 6, 2023, the court advised plaintiff that motions to dismiss shall be briefed 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). (ECF No. 37 at 6.) In addition, by order filed November 19, 2024, 

plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss or a statement of 

voluntary dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that failure 

to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.) The time granted has expired, and plaintiff has not 

complied with the order or otherwise responded to the court.

////

Case 2:22-cv-02300-DAD-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 3
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

“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 considers 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).

The court has considered the five factors set forth above. The first two factors strongly 

support dismissal of this action. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and the court’s 

November 19, 2024 order suggests plaintiff has abandoned this action. The third factor, prejudice 

to defendants from plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, slightly favors dismissal. Plaintiff’s 

failure to oppose the motion has already caused delay of this action, and a presumption of injury 

arises from unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 

(9th Cir. 1976). The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court advised plaintiff of the 

requirements under the Local Rules and granted additional time to oppose the pending motion, to 

no avail. Thus, the court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action.

The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, does not 

weigh in favor of dismissal as a sanction. However, the factors supporting dismissal outweigh this 

factor. Accordingly, defendants’ motion should be granted and this action should be dismissed for 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 

shall assign a district judge to this case.

Case 2:22-cv-02300-DAD-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 3
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

In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (ECF No. 49) be GRANTED. 

2. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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 response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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). 

Dated: January 15, 2025

8, kend2300.nooppo.fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-02300-DAD-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3