Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01425/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01425-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Gotlieb
Defendant
Allen Richardson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN RICHARDSON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

DAVID GOTLIEB, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1425 OWW DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 20, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint

within twenty days. To date, Plaintiff has not submitted an amended complaint. In a related case,

Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Objection to Reassignment of the Magistrate Judge D.L.

Beck” in which he does not actually object to the reassignment of Judge Beck, but rather appears

to object with certain language in the December 20, 2005, order. In any event, Plaintiff’s filing is

not an amended complaint. 

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 inherent

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 01/25/06 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

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 November 14, 2005. 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 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 file an amended complaint

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 01/25/06 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

expressly stated: “failure to file an amended complaint 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 December 19, 2005. 

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 thirty 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: January 24, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01425-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 3