Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01319-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chad Randall Bergman
Plaintiff
County of Kern
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Chad Bergman is proceeding pro se in this action against the County of Kern, alleging 

employees of the County violated his civil rights by executing an unlawful arrest, using excessive force 

in the course of the arrest and failing to provide medical care in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution. (Doc. 1) Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and 

failed to comply with the Court’s orders, it is recommended that the action be DISMISSED without 

prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint for damages on August 28, 2015. (Doc. 1) The County filed a 

motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the Court on November 2, 2015. (Docs. 9, 16) 

The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service. 

(Doc. 16 at 12) Because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the Court issued an Order to 

Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed on June 13, 2014. (Doc. 17) In addition, the 

CHAD RANDALL BERGMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01319 - TLN - JLT 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

Case 1:15-cv-01319-TLN-JLT Document 18 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Court reminded Plaintiff that the action may be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure 

to comply with the Court’s orders. (Id. at 2) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s 

order. 

II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

party to comply 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.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 

power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 

dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 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 

or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

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

of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 

failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 

III. Discussion and Analysis

To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a Court 

order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(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 sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 

Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s 

interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 

managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Judges in the Eastern District 

of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court cannot, and will not hold, this 

Case 1:15-cv-01319-TLN-JLT Document 18 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 4
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

action in abeyance given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the deadlines set forth by the Court and 

failure to prosecute. The risk of prejudice to the defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Notably, the court warned: “If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order to file an amended 

complaint, the Court may dismiss this action due to his failure to prosecute it and his failure to 

obey the Court’s order.” (Doc. 16 at 13, emphasis in original). In the Order to Show Cause, the 

Court reminded Plaintiff that an action may be dismissed “based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 

action or failure to obey a court order.” (Doc. 17 at 2) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warnings that 

dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s orders, and his failure to prosecute the 

action. Further, these warnings satisfy the requirement that the Court consider less drastic measures. 

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Given these facts, the policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. 

IV. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff failed to comply with, or otherwise respond to, the Court’s orders dated November 2, 

2015 (Doc. 16) and December 9, 2015 (Doc. 17). Consequently, Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute 

this action through his failure to file a First Amended Complaint. 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close the action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 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.” 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01319-TLN-JLT Document 18 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 4
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

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); Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01319-TLN-JLT Document 18 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 4