Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05340/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05340-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLEN CHEE, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5340 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE 

vs. TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Conference order on July 8, 2004, this Court set a Mandatory

Settlement Conference for July 13, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 which required the personal

appearance of plaintiff. 

On July 13, 2005, the Court convened for the Settlement Conference. Plaintiff failed to appear

for the Conference. This Court then issued an order to show cause to plaintiff Glen Chee to show cause

on August 5, 2005 at 8:45 a.m. in Department 6 of this Court why this action should not be dismissed

for failure to comply with this Court’s order. Plaintiff was ordered to appear at this time and place. The

order requiring plaintiff’s appearance specifically advised: “Plaintiff is admonished that failure to

comply with this Order to Show Cause will result in this Court’s recommendation to dismiss this

action.” (Emphasis in original.) Plaintiff failed to appear at the August 5, 2005 hearing to show cause.

DISCUSSION

This Court’s 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 inherent power to

Case 1:04-cv-05340-OWW -LJO Document 29 Filed 08/08/05 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

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 obey a court order or 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 lack

of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order, a 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 defendant; (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 1260-1261;

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In this 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 as plaintiff has not advanced this

action by failing to appear at court ordered conference and to respond to this Court’s orders. The third

factor -- risk of prejudice to defendant -- 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 an order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration

of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133; Henderson, 779

F.2d at 1424. Plaintiff received adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with

this Court’s orders.

/////

Case 1:04-cv-05340-OWW -LJO Document 29 Filed 08/08/05 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED

without prejudice on the grounds of plaintiff’s failure to obey this Court’s orders. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to United States District Judge Oliver W.

Wanger pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. Within 10 days of the

date of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties and the Magistrate Judge in compliance with this Court’s Local

Rule 72-304(b). Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). 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 5, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05340-OWW -LJO Document 29 Filed 08/08/05 Page 3 of 3