Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00528/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00528-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anner Osbaldo Hernandez
Plaintiff
HomEq Servicing
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNER OSBALDO HERNANDEZ, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

HOMEQ SERVICING, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:10cv0528 OWW DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff Anner Osbaldo Hernandez (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and proceeding in

forma pauperis, filed this unlawful foreclosure action on March 25, 2010. He named HomEq

Servicing as Defendant. 

On April 2, 2010, the Court dismissed the complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2010. 

On May 12, 2010, the Court again dismissed the complaint and granted Plaintiff another 

opportunity to amend his claims. The Court provided Plaintiff with the relevant legal standards

and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. More than thirty (30)

days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed for

failure to follow a Court order.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00528-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 06/25/10 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

DISCUSSION

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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including,

where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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. United States Postal Serv., 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 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. This case

has been pending since March 25, 2010, and Plaintiff has been given opportunities to correct the

deficiencies in his complaint. 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, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00528-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 06/25/10 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

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 at 132-33; Henderson, 779

F.2d at 1424. The Court’s March 12, 2010, order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint expressly stated: “If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within this time

frame and in accordance with this order, the Court will recommend that this action be

dismissed.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

noncompliance with the Court’s order. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for

failure to follow a court order. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

with the Court. The 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: June 25, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00528-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 3