Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05484/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05484-0/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

CARL J. WELCOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. BOYD,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5484-OWW-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

OBEY THE COURT’S ORDER OF

FEBRUARY 12, 2005

(Doc. 19)

Plaintiff Carl J. Welcome (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2005, the court issued an order requiring

plaintiff to file his pre-trial statement on or before June 7, 2005. To date, plaintiff has not filed his

pre-trial statement 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)

Case 1:04-cv-05484-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 06/13/05 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

(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

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

dismissal of the action or entry of default.” 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, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of February 12, 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 fifteen (15)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

Case 1:04-cv-05484-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 06/13/05 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

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: June 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05484-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 3