Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01184-5/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

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

Plaintiff Rodney O’Neal Brown (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, initiated this action on July 29, 2014. 

On May 18, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend within 

thirty days. (ECF No. 24.) He was granted three extensions of time file a second amended complaint, 

the first on June 4, 2015, (ECF No. 27), the second on June 29, 2015, (ECF No. 29), and the third on 

July 27, 2015, (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint in 

compliance with the Court’s order, this action would be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. 

(ECF No. 24, p.11.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has passed, and he has 

not complied with the Court’s order. 

RODNEY O’NEAL BROWN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO 

OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 32)

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n 

the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 

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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 

833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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. This action has been pending

since July 2014. Plaintiff has previously been granted three extensions of time to file his amended 

complaint, but despite the Court’s leniency, he has not yet complied with the Court’s May 18, 2015 

order. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting such compliance by Plaintiff. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, 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, the 

court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the 

“considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-133; 

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s May 18, 2015 order granting Plaintiff leave to amend his 

complaint expressly stated, “If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with 

Case 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.” (ECF No. 24, p. 11.) Thus, 

Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his noncompliance with the Court’s 

order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 18, 2015 order, for failure to state a claim, and for 

failure to prosecute. 

These findings and recommendations will be 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 fourteen (14)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The 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 

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 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: September 9, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3