Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02501/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02501-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAD WASHBURN, No. CIV S-06-2501-FCD-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC

DEFENDER,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. In his “Complaint”

plaintiff states:

June 29th 2006 – Sep. 13th 2006. Did not do anything to help my

defense. This comes from 06DV00913 in family court. I ask this court

for a [sic] emergency temp. injunction on my 60 days in jail start Nov. 13

of this year. 

Please, I’m asking for help. I want to see my kids. As of now I

must wait 3 years. 

This is the entirety of plaintiff’s pleading. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02501-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/24/07 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

2

On December 7, 2006, the court issued an order screening plaintiff’s pleading as

required by law. In that order, the court observed:

Given that plaintiff has named the Office of the Public

Defender as a defendant to this action, it appears that plaintiff is alleging

that he is facing incarceration due to ineffective assistance of counsel. It

also appears that plaintiff is being prosecuted in the state court and that

plaintiff’s allegation arises from that prosecution. It is not clear, however,

whether plaintiff has been convicted of any crime. In any event, this court

cannot hear plaintiff’s claim at this time. If plaintiff has not yet been

convicted, the court would be barred from considering the instant civil

case until plaintiff has actually been convicted. See, e.g. Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Once plaintiff has been convicted, a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel would sound in habeas. Therefore, if

plaintiff has already been convicted, the instant action would have to be

dismissed in favor of plaintiff pursuing his rights in an exhausted habeas

corpus petition. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see

also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City

of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). See

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1987); Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994); Butterfield v. Bail 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th

Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff was given an opportunity to clarify his pleading and was directed to file an amended

complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal

of this action. 

Upon expiration of the 30-day period, plaintiff had not filed an amended

complaint as directed and, on January 25, 2007, the court issued findings and recommendations

that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

orders. Because it appeared that plaintiff’s address was not correctly listed on the court’s docket,

the Clerk of the Court re-served previous documents on plaintiff and, on January 30, 2007, the

court vacated the dismissal findings and recommendations and granted plaintiff an additional 30

days to file an amended complaint. To date, plaintiff has not complied. 

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)

Case 2:06-cv-02501-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/24/07 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

3

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

follow local rules, see Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53, and failure to comply with an order to file an

amended complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

Having considered these factors, the court finds that dismissal of the action is

appropriate. Specifically, plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s order directing him to

file an amended complaint. Moreover, as the court noted in the December 7, 2006, order, it does

not appear that plaintiff’s action can proceed at this time.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed, without prejudice. 

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: May 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02501-FCD-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 3