Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01230/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01230-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JEROME IRELAND, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRE SMITH, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT FILING FEE, 

AND FAILURETO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER

(ECF Nos. 4 & 6)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff’s motion 

for in forma pauperis was denied, and Plaintiff was ordered to submit an amended 

application by September 14, 2015. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff filed an amended application. 

(ECF No. 5.) On August 24, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s amended application for in 

forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days or the action 

would be dismissed. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure 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 

inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/02/15 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

Housing 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, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

63 (9th Cir. 1992) (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); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 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, 1424-25 (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 [C]ourt’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.” Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423.

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 

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

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 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. 

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/02/15 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

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

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to submit the applicable filing fee and failure to 

obey a court order. 

These Findings and Recommendation 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 Recommendation, 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: October 30, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 3