Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05464/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05464-22/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSIE SHAWNEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05464-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITH PREJUDICE, BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 90)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN ELEVEN DAYS

Plaintiff Charles Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2007, the court

issued a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to file his pre-trial statement on or before August 6,

2007. (Doc. 90.) After plaintiff notified the court of an address change on June 1, 2007, the order

was re-served on plaintiff at his new address on July 6, 2007, but returned by the United States Postal

Service as undeliverable on July 20, 2007. (Docs. 91, 93.) A notation on the envelope stated

“attempted not know.” (Doc. 93.) However, service at plaintiff’s address of record with the court

is deemed effective, Local Rule 83-182(f). Plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order to file

a pre-trial statement.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “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, theymay impose sanctions including, where

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 95 Filed 08/09/07 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

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 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 apprised 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

failure to 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 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. 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 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 discussed herein.

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 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order requiring plaintiff to file

a pre-trial statement expressly stated: “The parties are advised that failure to file pre-trial statements

as required by this order may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include

///

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 95 Filed 08/09/07 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

dismissal of the action or entry of default.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal

would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of May 24, 2007, and failure to

prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 eleven (11)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a 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 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: August 8, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05464-LJO -LJO Document 95 Filed 08/09/07 Page 3 of 3