Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00795/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00795-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G. Holmes
Defendant
Roy Welsh
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY WELSH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

G. HOLMES, )

)

Defendant. )

)

1:05-cv-00795-AWI-NEW-P

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 8) 

Roy Welsh (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On January 16, 2007, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to complete and return the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents form, together with completed summons, one

completed USM-285 form for each defendant, and two copies of the endorsed complaint filed June

17, 2005, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. The thirty-day period has

passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond 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 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 (9 Cir. 1986). th

Case 1:05-cv-00795-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 03/21/07 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

2

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 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 th

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring th

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for th

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 (9 Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with th

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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of th

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 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 of January 16, 2007,

expressly stated: “The 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 noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED based on

Case 1:05-cv-00795-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 03/21/07 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

3

Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of January 16, 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: March 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00795-AWI-LJO Document 11 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 3