Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00961-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ambry
Defendant
Luis Muratalla-Lua
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MURATALLA-LUA, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

JOHN AMBRY, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-00961-AWI-SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC.

5)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO FOLLOW AN ORDER OF THE

COURT OR TO PROSECUTE (DOCS. 4,

7)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred

to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local

Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

On July 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor filed a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because 

Plaintiff was incarcerated and was suing his attorney for

ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with Plaintiff’s

defense in a criminal case that apparently resulted in a judgment

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 7
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

of conviction pursuant to which Plaintiff is presently

incarcerated, and further because Plaintiff had sought both

monetary damages in his complaint and also a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, the Court issued an order on July 25, 2007,

granting Plaintiff thirty days in which to file an application to

proceed in forma pauperis, or a notice of voluntary dismissal or

of intent to proceed with a habeas corpus action separately from

an action for damages. The order also informed Plaintiff of the

apparent defects in his complaint and the legal standards on

which the Court based its order.

The order was served on Plaintiff by mail on July 25, 2007;

the mail has not been returned. On July 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed

a motion for the appointment of counsel, but to date, Plaintiff

has neither filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis,

paid the filing fee, or indicated an intention to dismiss the

damages action and proceed with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. 

On September 12, 2007, the Court issued an order to

Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed

for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee, file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise respond to

the Court’s order. The docket reflects that the order was served

on Plaintiff by mail at the site of Plaintiff’s incarceration on

September 12, 2007. The mail has not been returned, and Plaintiff

has not responded to the Court’s order. 

 I. Motion to Appoint Counsel

On July 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for the

appointment of counsel because he spoke very little English and

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 7
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

was housed in a psychiatric unit in the state prison for a mental

disability.

Plaintiff was informed by the Court’s order dated September

12, 2007, that the Court cannot appoint counsel or otherwise

consider the merits of Plaintiff’s case until either the filing

fee is paid or a completed application to proceed in forma

pauperis is filed.

Plaintiff cites no authority permitting this Court to order

counsel to represent him, whether for compensation or otherwise.

Because Plaintiff does not allege that he is suffering any

risk to his personal liberty, Plaintiff has no right to the

appointment of counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services

of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 

The Court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis. The Court may request an attorney voluntarily to

represent a person proceeding in forma pauperis who is unable to

afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). However, even where a

statute provides for such appointment of counsel by the Court in

such circumstances, appointment is discretionary, not mandatory.

United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569

(9 Cir. 1995). Appointment may be made if a court finds that th

there are exceptional circumstances after evaluating the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the party

to articulate his or her claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved; the factors must be viewed

together. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9 Cir. 1991) th

(citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. th

1986)).

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 7
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

Here, this Court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Further,

this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious

and exceptional cases. In light of the stage of the proceedings,

the Court cannot make an affirmative determination that Plaintiff

is likely to succeed on the merits. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Indeed, as the Court’s order of July 25, 2007, informed

Plaintiff, it does not appear that the complaint that Plaintiff

filed is meritorious. Further, the case does not appear to be

particularly complex or exceptional.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel IS DENIED without prejudice.

II. Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Action

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

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 10/19/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

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 this 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, as the case

has been pending since early July 2007. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal

because 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 -- the

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is

greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 10/19/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

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 directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee

as well as the order to show cause expressly stated that a

failure of Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order would result

in dismissal or a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Thus, Plaintiff received 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, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order.

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, any

party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy

on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections

to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to

the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

//

///

////

/////

//////

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 10/19/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00961-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 10/19/07 Page 7 of 7