Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00852/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00852-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME L. ZEPEDA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 11, 2015, the Court found Plaintiff had stated a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim, but dismissed his remaining claims without 

prejudice. (ECF No. 15.) When Plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading or notify the 

Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim, the Court issued an order to 

show cause. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order to show 

cause.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/03/15 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

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” In re 

Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 

Thompson v. Hous. 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, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Edwards v. Marin Park, 

Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of a 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); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 

1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 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 

alternatives. In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1226; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

Case 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/03/15 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

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this action. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). 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, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, 

at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a 

satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be 

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

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)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) 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 reply to the objections shall be served 

and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/03/15 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

Case 1:14-cv-00852-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/03/15 Page 4 of 4