Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00579/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00579-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Gregory Leonard Gonzales
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

GREGORY LEONARD GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00579----MJS 

ORDER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF 

DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER,

AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 4 & 5)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

eminent domain action. 

On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, 

but he was given leave to amend. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading 

in the time provided and, on June 30, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause 

why the action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure 

to prosecute, and failure to obey a court order. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff did not respond to 

Case 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 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

the order to 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, default or dismissal.” 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, 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 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 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 is likely 

unable to pay monetary sanctions, making such sanctions of little use.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and 

failure to prosecute. As Plaintiff has not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, the 

Clerk of Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign this matter to a United States District 

Judge for consideration of these findings and recommendations.

The 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 the findings and recommendation, 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 

Recommendation.” 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) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00579-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 3