Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00605/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00605-3/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

1

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on July 25, 2005, as undeliverable. 

A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Not at this address. However, plaintiff has not notified the

court of any change in address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See Local

Rule 83-182(f). 

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISABEL TUBACH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00605-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 7)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Isabel Tubach (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 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.

On July 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. To

date, plaintiff has not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:05-cv-00605-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 08/30/05 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Even if the

court were to conclude Plaintiff could proceed with this action

because Plaintiff has alleged she is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this

action is still subject to dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute and respond to court orders.

Local Rule 11-110 provides that a “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 Ain 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); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply

with court order). 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of

Case 1:05-cv-00605-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 08/30/05 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

prosecution, 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 Respondents; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives. 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, as this case has been pending for ten

months. The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases

in which parties do not take any action in their case. The

public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation

weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the

court’s limited resources may be spent on cases in which the

litigants are actually proceeding. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal

because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of an

unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). In addition,

Defendants have not yet made an appearance in this action. 

The fourth factor, looking to the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits, has little or no weight in

actions where the plaintiff lack enough of an interest to respond

to court orders. Finally, the fifth factor, requiring the court

to consider less other sanctions, has little weight in this case. 

A court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s

orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

Case 1:05-cv-00605-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 08/30/05 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

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. The

court warned Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee or file

an application to proceed in forma pauperus would result in the

dismissal of this action. In addition, the court has no less

drastic sanction than dismissal in an action such as this one

where the Plaintiff refuse to litigate her case and respond to

court orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 8, 2005,

are ADOPTED; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00605-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 08/30/05 Page 4 of 4