Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01126-2/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

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT SIMMONS, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

SEPTEMBER WINCHELL, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:06-cv-01126 OWW DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

On January 30, 2008, the Court issued an order finding service of the Complaint appropriate

and forwarding service documents to Plaintiff (Doc. 9). Plaintiff was ordered to complete a Notice

of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the Court within thirty (30) days

along with the following documents:

a. Completed Summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant to be served; and

c. Three (3) copies of the Complaint filed on August 24, 2006

The thirty (30)day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not submitted the above

documents or otherwise responded to the Court's order.

/ / / / /

Case 1:06-cv-01126-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 03/17/08 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

-2-

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 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.

Case 1:06-cv-01126-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 03/17/08 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

-3-

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 expressly stated: "The

failure to comply with this Order will result in a Recommendation that this action be dismissed."

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 based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of January 30, 2008. 

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 thirty 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." The parties are 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: March 17, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01126-OWW -DLB Document 10 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 3