Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738-15/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

JOSEPH BERNARD WIDBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAIL LEWIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-6738-AWI- DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE,

BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATE

Plaintiff Joseph Widby (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is set for trial on

November 6, 2007. On April 5, 2007, the court ordered that plaintiff file a pretrial statement on

August 20, 2007. Defendantsfiled a pretrial statement on September 13, 2007. Plaintiff did not file

a pretrial statement. 

On September 19, 2007, this court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Case Should Not

be Dismissed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff was ordered to file a

response to the Order to Show Cause as well as to file a pretrial statement by September 26, 2007.

Plaintiff’s deadline was extended until October 19, 2007. To date, plaintiff has failed to file any

response.

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

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 70 Filed 10/23/07 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

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 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. 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 pre-trial statement expressly stated: “The parties are advised that failure to file pre-trial statements

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 70 Filed 10/23/07 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

as required by this order may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include

dismissal of the action or entry of default.” Moreover, the Order to Show Cause expressly stated that

plaintiff’s failure to reply to the court’s order may result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.

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, with

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s orders filed on April 5, 2007, and

September 19, 2007, and for failure to prosecute. In light of the foregoing order, the trial scheduled

for November 6, 2007, is vacated.

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 eleven (11)

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. Yist, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 70 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 3