Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00581/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00581-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis Boykin
Plaintiff
Six Unknown Names Agents
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS BOYKIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:06-cv-00581-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 3) 

Louis Boykin (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding

pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). 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 26, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring

Plaintiff to respond thereto, indicating whether he desires to

proceed with this action, within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of that order. The thirty-day period has passed, and

Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the

Court’s order.

//

Case 1:06-cv-00581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/27/06 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

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 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, th

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 (9 Cir. th

1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for th

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for th

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 (9 Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with th

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

Case 1:06-cv-00581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/27/06 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

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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth th

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 of July 26, 2006, expressly

stated: “Plaintiff’s failure to file a response to this order

within thirty days will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.” Thus,

plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from

non-compliance 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 July 26, 2006, and for failure to prosecute.

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 TWENTY(20) days

Case 1:06-cv-00581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/27/06 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

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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00581-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 09/27/06 Page 4 of 4