Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01117/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01117-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN JUAN LLOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GENSEAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01117-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Adrian Juan Lloyd is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. section 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 19, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On 

September 30, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) or to pay the filing fee within 45 days. (Doc. 3.) On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff 

submitted an IFP application. (Doc. 5.) 

On October 15, 2024, this Court issued its “Order to Show Cause in Writing Why 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Should Not Be Denied.” (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff was 

directed to explain fourteen JPAY entries and six SALES entries appearing on his Inmate 

Statement Report, or to pay the $405 filing fee for this action, within 30 days. (Id. at 3.) 

Case 1:24-cv-01117-KES-SKO Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 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

Although more than 30 days have passed, Plaintiff has neither explained the entries on his 

Inmate Statement Report nor paid the required filing fee for this action. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 

be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 

or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 

to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 

of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 

order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 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 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 

prosecute and to comply with local rules). 

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, 779 F.2d at 

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

Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s October 15, 2024, order. Plaintiff was 

ordered show cause in writing, within 30 days, why his IFP application should not be denied, by 

explaining certain JPAY and SALES transactions appearing on his Inmate Statement Report. 

(Doc. 8.) More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a written response. The 

Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ignores the Court’s orders. Without a 

determination regarding Plaintiff’s IFP application, the case can proceed no further. Thus, the 

Court finds that both the first and second factors—the public’s interest in the expeditious 

resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket— weigh in favor of dismissal. 

Case 1:24-cv-01117-KES-SKO Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 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

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

Next, while the risk of prejudice to defendants is a lesser factor here because the named 

defendants have not appeared in the action, a presumption of harm or injury arises from the 

occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 

524 (9th Cir. 1976). Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s OSC regarding his IFP 

application is an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. The Court finds the third factor—a 

risk of prejudice to defendants—weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

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.” In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff fails to move this case forward by not complying with the 

Court’s OSC to provide further information concerning his IFP application. The Court finds that 

the fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition on the merits—also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

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 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Here, the Court’s First Informational 

Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case advised, in relevant part: “the parties must 

comply with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P."), and the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California ("Local Rules"), as 

modified by this Order. Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which 

may include dismissal of the case.” (Doc. 2 at 1.) Plaintiff was also advised that “all Court 

deadlines are strictly enforced.” (Id. at 5.) When the Court directed Plaintiff to submit an IFP 

application or to pay the filing fee on September 30, 2024, Plaintiff was advised that a “[f]ailure 

to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.” (Doc. 3 at 1, emphasis in 

original.) Finally, the OSC also warned as follows: “Plaintiff is advised that a failure to 

Case 1:24-cv-01117-KES-SKO Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 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

respond to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for a 

failure to comply with court.” (Doc. 8 at 3, emphasis in original.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate 

warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with court orders. Moreover, at this 

stage of the proceedings, there is little available to the Court that would constitute a satisfactory 

lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce 

resources. Therefore, the fifth factor—the availability of less drastic sanctions—weighs in favor 

of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district 

judge to this action. Further, the Court RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 

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

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages

without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 

the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 

the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 

may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 

(9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01117-KES-SKO Document 10 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 4