Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00614-7/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

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

JAMES GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STU SHERMAN, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 11, 15, 20)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff James Garrett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 1, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave 

to amend within thirty days after service. (ECF No. 7). On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for preliminary injunction. Although Plaintiff stated in his moving papers that his second 

amended complaint was attached as an exhibit, the Court did not locate a second amended 

complaint in Plaintiff’s filing. (ECF No. 12). Consequently, on August 15, 2016, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal within 

thirty days. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was expressly warned that if he failed to file a second

amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order, then the Court would recommend

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 21 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to obey a court order. 

(ECF No. 15 at p. 2). 

Plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint and did not comply with or otherwise 

respond to the Court’s order. Accordingly, on October 7, 2016, the Court issued an order for 

Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of service, why this action should not be 

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s August 15, 2016 order, and for 

his failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 20). 

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause was due on or before October 24, 2016. 

However, as of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither complied with the Court’s orders, nor 

otherwise communicated with the Court regarding his second amended complaint. 

II. Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. 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 an action, 

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, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

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 v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 21 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Here, the action has been pending for over a year, and Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint is overdue. Despite multiple attempts to communicate with Plaintiff, he has been nonresponsive to the Court’s orders. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff

ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in 

favor of dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 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,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

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 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 15, 2016 order 

expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that order would result in a 

recommendation of dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to 

obey a court order. (ECF No. 15, p. 2). Plaintiff also was warned of the potential for dismissal 

by the Court’s October 7, 2016 order to show cause. (ECF No. 10). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 

warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 

Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court which 

would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this 

action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is 

likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 21 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 4
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

III. Conclusion and Recommendations

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A;

2. This action be dismissed for the failure to obey the Court’s August 15, 2016 order 

(ECF No. 15), and October 7, 2016 order (ECF No. 20), and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

this action; and

3. This dismissal count as a strike against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” 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: November 1, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 21 Filed 11/01/16 Page 4 of 4