Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05726/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05726-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON J. MAGDALENO, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

NANCY ERWIN, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04 CV F 5726 REC DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on May 17, 2004. 

On March 15, 2005, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to file a third amended

complaint within 30 days. On June 1, 2005, the court granted plaintiff a 30-day extension of

time to file the third amended complaint. The 30-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has

not filed a third amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order. 

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, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d

Case 1:04-cv-05726-REC-DLB Document 54 Filed 07/25/05 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

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, as this case

has been pending since May 2004. 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 third amended

complaint expressly stated: “failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this

Case 1:04-cv-05726-REC-DLB Document 54 Filed 07/25/05 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

order will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110 and will result in dismissal of this action.” 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 based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of March 15, 2005. 

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 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 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: July 25, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05726-REC-DLB Document 54 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 3