Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00148-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Corrales
Plaintiff
Six Unknown Names Agents
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS CORRALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIX UNKNOWN NAMES

AGENTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00148-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Doc. 3)

On February 10, 2006, plaintiff Carlos Corrales filed a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a

remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. On March 22, 2006, the court issued an order

requiring plaintiff to either pay the $250.00 filing fee in full or file an application to proceed in forma

pauperis within thirty days from the date of service of the order. More than thirty days have passed

and plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

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.

Case 1:06-cv-00148-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 06/13/06 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

2

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 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 requiring plaintiff to submit

an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee 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 his noncompliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of March 22, 2006.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00148-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 06/13/06 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

3

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 eleven (11)

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.” 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 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00148-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 3