Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05259/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05259-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan Hall
Plaintiff
Watson
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

NATHAN HALL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

SERGEANT WATSON, )

)

Defendant. )

)

1:04-cv-05259-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 9) 

Plaintiff, Nathan Hall (“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 March 25, 2005, the court issued an order requiring

plaintiff to complete and return the attached Notice of Submission

of Documents, together with other documents, to the court 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.

Case 1:04-cv-05259-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/12/05 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

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 (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

Case 1:04-cv-05259-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/12/05 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

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

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order of March 25, 2005, 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 non-compliance

with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of

March 25, 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 twenty (20) days

Case 1:04-cv-05259-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/12/05 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

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: May 12, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05259-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/12/05 Page 4 of 4