Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01768/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01768-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ALBERT GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN SHIREY, 

Defendants.

No. 1: 14-cv-1768-LJO-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS 

ACTION

FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jason Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action 

filed the instant complaint along with a filing fee. (Doc. 1). On June 18, 2015, the Court issued 

an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 16). 

Plaintiff was ordered to serve the amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the service of the 

order. Well over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s 

order.

DISCUSSION

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

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the 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 impose sanctions including, 

where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th 

Case 1:14-cv-01768-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 10/02/15 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

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); 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 apprized 

of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 

failure to comply with 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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because 

there is no indication that Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action. The third factor, risk of 

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises 

from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 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. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that 

his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint was clear that 

dismissal would result from non-compliance with the Court’s order. (Doc. 16, pg. 5).

Case 1:14-cv-01768-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 10/02/15 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

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 

DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and that the Clerk of the Court 

be directed to close this action. 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within fifteen (15) days after the date of this Finding and 

Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Finding and Recommendation.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01768-LJO-BAM Document 17 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 3