Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01588/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01588-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
Defendant
Thuan Huy Ha
Plaintiff
U.S. Department of Justice
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

27

28 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THUAN HUY HA,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/ 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. 

ATTORNEYS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01588-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO 

FOLLOW COURT ORDER 

On October 3, 2013, Thuan Huy Ha (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, filed an action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. 

(Compl., ECF 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on September 11, 2015, 

found that it stated a claim against the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and 

directed Plaintiff to file, on or before October 11, 2015, documents necessary to 

effectuate service. (ECF No. 9.) According to the Court’s docket, the order was returned 

as undeliverable. The October 11, 2015, deadline to submit service documents has 

Case 1:13-cv-01588-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 4
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

passed and on October 16, 2015, the Court issued a second order to submit service 

documents or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply 

with a court order. (ECF No. 10.) Over thirty (30) days have passed, and according to 

the Court’s docket, the order was returned as undeliverable. 

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s September 14 and October 16, 2015, 

Orders, despite the thirty day deadlines for doing so. Moreover, because the Court’s 

orders were returned as undeliverable, it appears Plaintiff’s current mailing address is 

incorrect, and he has not complied with Local Rule 182(f), which provides that “Each 

appearing ... pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other 

parties of any change of address ....” E.D. Local Rule 182(f). 

I. DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure 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, 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 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 

rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 

Case 1:13-cv-01588-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 4
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

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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 

130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.

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 because it does not appear that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to 

prosecute this matter. Plaintiff has twice been ordered to provide documents for service, 

but has not done so. Moreover, he has not provided the Court a correct mailing address, 

thereby preventing the Court the ability to communicate with the Plaintiff.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 

because a presumption of injury arises from any 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. 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, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

Here, the Court's order was clear that dismissal would result from non-compliance with 

the order. (See ECF No. 10.)

II. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 

for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States 

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code 

section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party 

Case 1:13-cv-01588-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 4
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 4

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." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 

Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01588-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 4