Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00574/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00574-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jae June Pak
Plaintiff
Six Unknown Names Agents
Defendant

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAE JUNE PAK, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS,

et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-CV-00574-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO

OBEY A COURT ORDER

On June 13, 2006, the court issued an order for plaintiff to pay the $250.00 filing

fee for this action or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, within thirty days of the

date of service of the order. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not paid the

filing fee, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the court's

order.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00574-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 07/27/06 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

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. 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

Case 1:06-cv-00574-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 07/27/06 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

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 requiring plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma

pauperis 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

his 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 June 13, 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

fifteen (15) 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 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: July 26, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00574-AWI-LJO Document 4 Filed 07/27/06 Page 3 of 3