Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02038/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02038-5/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

DEVON DION MANNINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O PALERMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY 

A COURT ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On July 20, 2015, an order was entered, directing Plaintiff to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was 

specifically cautioned that his failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 110. To date, Plaintiff has not

filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Local Rule 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 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, 

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 09/08/15 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

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 

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. 

1998)(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 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.

Here, 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 the merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed 

herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that a failure to obey a court order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Local 

Rule 110 for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order.

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 09/08/15 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

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)(B). Within thirty 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 waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan 158 

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1988). 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: September 8, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 44 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 3