Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00560-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

Plaintiff Earl Simpson (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on April 9, 2015. 

On April 13, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 3.) Thereafter, on April 21, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff 

to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the correct form or pay the filing fee within 

thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) On June 3, 2015, the Court issued a second order requiring Plaintiff to 

either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 6.) The 

relevant time periods for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s orders have expired, and Plaintiff has not 

filed the correct application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee or consented to or 

declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 

EARL SIMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00560-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 

(ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-00560-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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); see also In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(standards governing dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). These factors guide a court in 

deciding what to do and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re 

PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s 

need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. This action has been pending since April 2015

and can proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s orders. 

Moreover, the matter cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted, awaiting 

Plaintiff’s compliance. Indeed, a civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the 

filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As for the risk of 

prejudice, the law presumes prejudice from unreasonable delay. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227-28. 

Regarding the fourth factor, while public policy favors disposition on the merits and therefore weighs 

against dismissal, it is Plaintiff’s own conduct which is at issue here and which has stalled the case. 

Id. at 1228. Finally, there are no alternative sanctions which are satisfactory. A monetary sanction 

has little to no benefit in a case in which Plaintiff has ceased responding to the Court’s orders. 

Case 1:15-cv-00560-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Further, Plaintiff was warned that his failure to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or 

pay the filing fee would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 4.) A warning that the failure to 

obey a court order will result in dismissal can meet the consideration of alternatives requirement. Id. 

at 1229. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

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: July 13, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00560-LJO-BAM Document 8 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 3