Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00044/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00044-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

LORENZO McCRAY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

WCC/GEO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-00044-REC-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO

STATE ANY CLAIMS UPON WHICH

RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER

BIVENS

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Lorenzo McCray (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in

this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

By order filed August 3, 2005, the court found that

plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any claims for relief against

the named defendants. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of that order. More than thirty

days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint

Case 1:05-cv-00044-REC -SMS Document 13 Filed 09/21/05 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

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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00044-REC -SMS Document 13 Filed 09/21/05 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

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 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. 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 of August 3, 2005, requiring plaintiff to file an

amended complaint, expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to file an

amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court will

recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under

Bivens.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would

result from non-compliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED, with prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to obey the

court’s order of August 3, 2005, and for the reasons set forth

therein, namely, for failure to state any claims upon which relief

Case 1:05-cv-00044-REC -SMS Document 13 Filed 09/21/05 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

may be granted under Bivens. 

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 fifteen (15)

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: September 21, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00044-REC -SMS Document 13 Filed 09/21/05 Page 4 of 4