Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01510/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01510-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Institution for Men
Defendant
Michael Joseph Spraitz
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 In the docket, a letter regarding prison conditions is titled “complaint.” (Doc. 1.) 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JOSEPH SPRAITZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 06-1510 GEB CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, who is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21). By order filed July 31, 2006, the court

ordered plaintiff to file a complaint to commence this action and ordered plaintiff to either 1

submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or the

appropriate filing fee. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the court’s order would

result in a recommendation to dismiss this action. To date, plaintiff has not complied with the

court’s order or communicated with the court in any other way.

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-01510-GEB-CMK Document 7 Filed 09/26/06 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 court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to follow local rules. 

See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file a

complaint that complies with Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to file either an

affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or the correct filing fee, IT IS

RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-

110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01510-GEB-CMK Document 7 Filed 09/26/06 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

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 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The 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. See Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 25, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01510-GEB-CMK Document 7 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 3