Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01202/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01202-6/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

DEVONNE O’DELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01202-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 27)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 30, 2014, Plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to file a first amended 

complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 19.) The Court has awaited Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint since that date.

Plaintiff first sought and received a thirty day extension of time in which to file his 

amended pleading. (ECF Nos. 20 & 22.) The extended deadline passed without Plaintiff 

either filing an amended pleading or seeking an extension of time to do so. On 

December 30, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why 

the action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to 

Case 1:11-cv-01202-LJO-MJS Document 29 Filed 05/11/15 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

prosecute. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order to show cause. On 

January 21, 2015, the Court issued findings and a recommendation that the action be 

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF 

No. 25.)

On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a ninety-day extension of time on 

the ground he had been moved to a different institution and had not received his legal 

materials. (ECF No. 26.) The Court noted that Plaintiff’s numerous failures to respond to 

Court orders constituted grounds for dismissal, but nonetheless granted Plaintiff one final 

extension of time to file his amended pleading. (ECF No. 27.) The Court also discharged 

its order to show cause and vacated the findings and recommendation. Plaintiff was 

warned that, absent changed circumstances or other good cause, no further extensions 

of time would be given. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff has, once again, failed to file an amended pleading by the 

extended deadline.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure 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 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 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-

61 (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 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

Case 1:11-cv-01202-LJO-MJS Document 29 Filed 05/11/15 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

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

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

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. Plaintiff is likely 

unable to pay monetary sanctions, making such sanctions of little use.

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

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute, and 

that dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 

F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).

These Findings and Recommendations 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 Recommendations, 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 

Case 1:11-cv-01202-LJO-MJS Document 29 Filed 05/11/15 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

(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: May 11, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01202-LJO-MJS Document 29 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 4