Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00165-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nash
Defendant
Morris Paulton
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS PAULTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

NASH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-00165-LJO-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT/

ACTION (Doc. 12) 

Morris Paulton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 23, 2006, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff

to file an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified

therein OR notify the court in writing of his wish to otherwise

voluntarily dismiss the case, within thirty (30) days from the date

of service of that order. On June 12, 2006 and December 27, 2006,

respectively, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. On

July 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time. On December

18, 2006, the court granted Plaintiff an additional thirty (30)

days within which to respond. On December 26, 2006 and January 12,

Case 1:05-cv-00165-LJO -SMS Document 23 Filed 04/13/07 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

2007, respectively, the United States Postal Service returned the

orders served on Plaintiff as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff

has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s

order(s).

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

Case 1:05-cv-00165-LJO -SMS Document 23 Filed 04/13/07 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

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 (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 May 23, 2006, expressly

stated: “Plaintiff is...forewarned that his failure to comply with

this Order may result in a Recommendation that the Complaint be

dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.” Thus, Plaintiff had

adequate warning that dismissal could result from non-compliance

with the court’s order(s).

//

/ 

Case 1:05-cv-00165-LJO -SMS Document 23 Filed 04/13/07 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

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Complaint,

and therefore this action, be DISMISSED based on Plaintiff's

failure to obey the court’s order of May 23, 2006.

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

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: April 13, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00165-LJO -SMS Document 23 Filed 04/13/07 Page 4 of 4