Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00379/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00379-2/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

27

28

 The United States Postal Service returned the order on August 17, 2007 as undeliverable. (Doc. 6.) A notation

1

on the envelope indicates that plaintiff is no longer in custody at the Fresno County Jail. However, plaintiff has not notified

the court of any change in her address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule

83-182(f). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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 A COURT ORDER

(DOCUMENT #3)

Plaintiff Karina Hernandez (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2007, the court issued an order for plaintiff to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action, within thirty days

of the date of service of the order (Doc. 3). More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not

complied with or otherwise responded to the court's order. In addition, on July 12, 2007, plaintiff

submitted a letter written in Spanish (Doc. 4). On August 9, 2007, the court issued an order disregarding

the letter, returning a copy of the letter to plaintiff, and ordering her to resubmit her letter in English

(Doc. 5). More than twenty days have passed and plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.1

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

Case 1:07-cv-00379-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 11/26/07 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

27

28

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 dismissal, as this case

has been pending since March 8, 2007. 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 requiring plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis

Case 1:07-cv-00379-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 11/26/07 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

27

28

expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will 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 order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of April 10, 2007.

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: November 21, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00379-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 3