Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01632/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01632-0/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

1

 Defendant James P. Drennan, M.D. is represented by the law firm of Lynch, Gilardi &

Grummer. The remaining defendants are represented by the Attorney General of the State of

California.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHANDRA KISHOR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1632 FCD JFM P

vs.

DOCTOR GEAGHTY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on defendants’ motions to

dismiss and/or for a more definite statement.1 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on August 1, 2002. Plaintiff’s original and first amended

complaints and various addendums thereto were dismissed with leave to amend prior to service

of process on any named defendant. By order filed April 29, 2003, this court found service of the

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01632-FCD-JFM Document 106 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

second amended complaint appropriate as to several defendants and made orders necessary for

service of process. 

Thereafter, several defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint

or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. In findings and recommendations filed July

1, 2004, this court found that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suite

with respect to all claims except plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference

to his medical needs for treatment of back pain and stomach pain (ulcers) and for continuation of

heart medication. The court therefore recommended dismissal of the second amended complaint

with leave to file a third amended complaint raising only those claims that had been

administratively exhausted prior to suit.

The findings and recommendations were adopted in full by the district court on

August 2, 2004. On the same day, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. By order filed

October 22, 2004, this court determined that plaintiff’s third amended complaint suffered from

several defects. Specifically, the court found that plaintiff had (1) included in the third amended

complaint a great deal of “immaterial background information;” (2) identified sixteen defendants

but failed to include charging allegations against many of them; and (3) failed to limit his Eighth

Amendment claims to the three medical conditions specified in the district court’s order and

instead has alleged inadequate treatment of other medical conditions. (Order filed October 22,

2004, at 3-4.) For those reasons, the court dismissed the third amended complaint and granted

plaintiff “one final opportunity to file a pleading that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Local Rules of Court, the pleading requirements for § 1983 claims of deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the limitations of

the district court’s August 2, 2004 order,” and the October 22, 2004 order. (Order filed October

22, 2004, at 4.)

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01632-FCD-JFM Document 106 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on November 23, 2004. On December

1, 2004, defendant Drennan filed a motion to dismiss and/or for a more definite statement, and

on December 2, 2004, the other defendants filed a similar motion.

ANALYSIS

All of the defendants seek, inter alia, dismissal of this action with prejudice on the

ground that plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements set forth in this court’s October

22, 2004 order for amending his complaint. Specifically, defendants note that plaintiff’s fourth

amended complaint is virtually identical to his third amended complaint and that plaintiff has

made no attempt to limit the claims raised in the fourth amended complaint to those identified by

the district court’s August 2, 2004 order. Although defendants predicate their motions on Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b), to the extent that defendants seek dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply

with court orders, the motions are properly construed as motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b).

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss

an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for

failure to comply with a court order the district court must weigh five factors including: ‘(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.’” Ferdik, at 1260-61 (quoting 

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In the instant case, plaintiff has at least twice been specifically ordered to limit the

claims raised in this action to those for which he had exhausted administrative remedies prior to

suit. In neither his third nor his fourth amended complaint has he done so. In fact, the fourth

amended complaint consists principally of a copy of the third amended complaint, to which

Case 2:02-cv-01632-FCD-JFM Document 106 Filed 06/06/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

plaintiff has appended two new pages of a form complaint and two handwritten pages, neither of

which limit the claims raised in the fourth amended complaint in accordance with the

requirements of prior court orders.

In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice, the

court has considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik. Here, as in Ferdik, the first two factors

strongly support dismissal of this action. The action has been pending for almost three years and

plaintiff has not yet filed a pleading containing only the medical claims which the district court

has determined were administratively exhausted prior to initiation of this action. Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with court orders has significantly delayed the progress of this action. 

Moreover, there is no reason to find that plaintiff will comply with subsequent court orders to

amend his complaint appropriately, as he has twice been given clear instructions concerning

amendment and has failed each time to comply with those instructions. It thus appears that

further time spent by the court on this action will consume scarce judicial resources making

orders with which plaintiff demonstrates no intention of complying. 

The third factor, prejudice to defendants, also favors dismissal. Defendants have

been present in this action for over fifteen months and have incurred time and expense filing two

motions to dismiss this action, and plaintiff has yet to file a complaint on which this action can

proceed. Defendants should not be required to expend further resources defending this action. 

The fifth factor also favors dismissal. The court has twice advised plaintiff of the

requirements for amending his complaint and granted ample additional time to do so, all to no

avail. Moreover, the court specifically warned plaintiff in the October 22, 2004 order that he

would be given “one final opportunity” to file a proper amended complaint, and that “submission

of a fourth amended complaint that violates the requirements of [the October 22, 2004] order or

the district court’s August 2, 2004 order” would result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed. The court finds no suitable alternative to dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, at

1262. 

Case 2:02-cv-01632-FCD-JFM Document 106 Filed 06/06/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,

weighs against dismissal of this action as a sanction. However, for the reasons set forth supra,

the first, second, third and fifth factors all support dismissal. Under the circumstances of this

case, those factors outweigh the general public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits. See Ferdik, at 1263.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ December 1, 2004 and December 2, 2004 motions to dismiss be

construed as motions to dismiss as a sanction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

and, so construed, that said motions be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed with prejudice. 

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)(l). Within twenty

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 ten days after service of the objections. 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. Aalst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 3, 2005.

12

kish1632.41b

Case 2:02-cv-01632-FCD-JFM Document 106 Filed 06/06/05 Page 5 of 5