Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00762/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00762-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Candelario
Plaintiff
Garza
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO CANDELARIO, 

Plaintiff,

 

v.

GARZA,

Defendant. 

______________________________/

1:09-cv-00762-LJO-DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE

A CLAIM

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

On September 29, 1009, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to file an amended

complaint, within thirty (30) days. The thirty (30)-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has

not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Local Rule 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 (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.

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-00762-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/04/10 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

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 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, 963 F.2d at 1262;

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order expressly stated:

"If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for

failure to state a claim under section 1983." 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 September 29, 2009, and for failure to state a claim. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-00762-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/04/10 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

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." The parties are 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, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:09-cv-00762-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 3