Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01797-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY MCDOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. RIVERA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 31)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jerry McDowell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 6, 2013. 

(ECF No. 1.) This action proceeds on an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants 

Sandoval, Garza, Fernandez, Guzman, Sanchez, and Acolla1(the “Defendants”) and on 

a First Amendment claim against Defendants Acala and Fernandez. (ECF Nos. 15 & 

19.)

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 10, 2014, alleging 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing suit. (ECF No. 

 

1

In Plaintiff’s complaint, he incorrectly spelled Defendant Acolla’s name. The correct spelling is Alcala. 

The Court will use the correct spelling.

Case 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS Document 33 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 4
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

25.) Plaintiff was granted three extensions of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff was granted the final 30-

day extension. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff was warned that no further extensions would be 

granted. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required 

under Local Rule 230(l) and the 30-day extension deadline has passed. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 

these 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 

inherent power to control their dockets . . . [and] [i]n the exercise of that power, they may 

impose sanctions. . .” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 

court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 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 a 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 Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 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.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

Case 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS Document 33 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 4
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

and the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

this action. See 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, as for the availability of 

lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would 

constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. 

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making 

monetary sanctions of little use.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, 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 

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS Document 33 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 1:13-cv-01797-LJO-MJS Document 33 Filed 04/01/15 Page 4 of 4