Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00379/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00379-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno County
Defendant
Fresno County Jail
Defendant
Karina Hernandez
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

On January 11, 2008, the United States Postal Service returned the orders that had been served on plaintiff at 1

her Fresno County Jail address, as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicates that plaintiff is out of custody.

The orders served on plaintiff at her other last-known address were not returned to the court. 

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARINA HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. 

______________________________/

1:07-cv-00379-LJO-SMS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY

TWO COURT ORDERS

(Docs. 9, 11)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1983. On December 13, 2007, the court issued an order (Doc. 9) for Plaintiff to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee for this action, within thirty (30)

days. On December 21, 2007, the United States Postal Service returned the order as

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated that Plaintiff was out of custody.

On January 7, 2008, the court issued an order (Doc. 11) for plaintiff to notify the

court of her current mailing address, within thirty (30) days, and also re-served the December 13,

2007 order (Doc. 9) on Plaintiff. Both orders were served on Plaintiff on January 7, 2008 at her

two last-known addresses. The thirty (30) day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not paid 1

Case 1:07-cv-00379-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 02/29/08 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-

the filing fee, notified the court of her current address, submitted an application to proceed in

forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the court's orders.

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

Case 1:07-cv-00379-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 02/29/08 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-

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. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that her 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 (Doc. 9) of December 13, 2007 expressly stated: “Plaintiff is forewarned that her

failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” 

The court’s order (Doc. 11) of January 7, 2008 expressly stated: “Plaintiff is advised that her

failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed." 

Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from her noncompliance with

the court’s orders.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s orders of December 13, 2007 and January 7, 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: February 29, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00379-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3