Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00800-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Melendrez
Defendant
Johnny Curtis Palmer
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY CURTIS PALMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MELENDREZ,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY 

COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Johnny Curtis Palmer is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Order re Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on 

August 13, 2024. (Doc. 28.) The parties were directed to complete and return the form within 30 

days. (Id. at 3.) 

On August 21, 2024, Defendants filed a completed Consent/Decline form. (Doc. 29.) 

However, Plaintiff failed to submit a completed Consent/Decline form within 30 days. 

On September 26, 2024, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) Why Action 

Should Not be Dismissed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Obey Court Order. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff was 

directed to file a written response within 14 days, or alternatively, to file a completed 

Case 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB Document 32 Filed 10/18/24 Page 1 of 5
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

Consent/Decline form. (Id. at 2.) More than 14 days have elapsed and Plaintiff has failed to 

respond to the OSC, return a completed Consent/Decline form, seek an extension, or otherwise 

communicate with the Court.

II. DISCUSSION

Applicable Legal Standards

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 

be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 

or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 

power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City

of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 

required to weigh 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.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 

citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 

must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 

Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order issued August 13, 2024, and to 

the OSC issued September 26, 2024. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130-31. 

Case 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB Document 32 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s failures to comply with the Court’s orders weigh in favor of dismissal. 

Plaintiff was originally directed to file a completed Consent/Decline form on June 30, 

2022. (See Doc. 5-1.) He did not do so. On August 13, 2024, the Court issued an order directing 

the parties to file a Consent/Decline form within 30 days. (See Doc. 26.) Plaintiff failed to 

comply. On September 26, 2024, the Court issued its OSC directing Plaintiff to respond in 

writing, or alternatively, to file a completed Consent/Decline form within 14 days. (Doc. 31.) 

Again, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. Thus, the first and second factors — the

expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket — weigh in favor of 

dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs slightly in favor of dismissal 

since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 

action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Defendant has appeared 

in the action and filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. And discovery commenced on August 

13, 2024. Although the risk of prejudice to Defendant Melendez is slight, considering Plaintiff’s 

failure to respond to the Court’s orders within the last 60 days, a presumption of injury has arisen 

from Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Thus, the third factor — a risk of 

prejudice to the defendants — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 

disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 

“this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 

disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 

F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff is not moving this case forward toward disposition on the merits. He has 

instead stopped communicating with the Court altogether, failing to comply with this Court’s 

orders. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 

Here, in the First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case issued June 

Case 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB Document 32 Filed 10/18/24 Page 3 of 5
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

30, 2022, Plaintiff was advised as follows: “In litigating this action, the parties must comply with 

this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), as modified by this 

Order. Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include 

dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (See Doc. 5 at 1, emphasis added.)

That same order advised Plaintiff that “all Court deadlines are strictly enforced.” (Id. at 5.) Next, 

in the OSC issued September 26, 2024, Plaintiff was warned as follows: “Failure to comply with 

this Order to Show Cause (OSC) will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders.” (Doc. 31 at 2, emphasis in original.) 

Thus, the undersigned finds Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal could result from his 

noncompliance with a Court order and this Court’s Local Rules. Thus, the fifth factor — the

availability of less drastic sanctions —weighs in favor of dismissal. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, and in doing so, has failed 

to prosecute this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 

inconsequential. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 

chosen to ignore. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons given above, this Court RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed 

without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court orders and failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 

leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 

Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 

exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

Case 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB Document 32 Filed 10/18/24 Page 4 of 5
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

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 

disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result 

in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00800-KES-CDB Document 32 Filed 10/18/24 Page 5 of 5