Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01756/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01756-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California
Defendant
Kevin M. Long
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

KEVIN M. LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01756-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER, FAILURE TO FILE 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS, AND FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE 

(ECF Nos. 3 & 4)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 17, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a completed and 

signed application to proceed in forma pauperis, or in the alternative to pay the $400.00 

filing fee for this action within thirty days. (ECF No. 3.) The deadline passed without 

Plaintiff filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paying the $400 filing fee, or 

seeking an extension of time to do so. On December 30, 2014, the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why the action should not be dismissed for 

failure to obey the Court’s order. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order to 

Case 1:14-cv-01756-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/22/15 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

2

show cause.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 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 based 

on a party’s failure to prosecute, 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 a 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 a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for 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 public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –

Case 1:14-cv-01756-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/22/15 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

3

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions 

of little use.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order that he file an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the applicable filing fee. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

RECOMMENDED THAT this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01756-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 3