Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01566-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leo Lerma
Plaintiff
D. D. Ortiz
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

LEO LERMA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

D. D. ORTIZ, )

)

Defendant. )

)

1:06-cv-01566-LJO-NEW (DLB) P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED (Doc. 11)

Plaintiff Leo Lerma (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed April 12, 2007, the

court found that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any claims

for relief against the named defendants. The court dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint and ordered plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within thirty days from the date of service of that

order. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not

filed an amended complaint 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

Case 1:06-cv-01566-LJO -LJO Document 12 Filed 06/13/07 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

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 (9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, th

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 (9 Cir. th

1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for th

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for th

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 (9 Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with th

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. 

Case 1:06-cv-01566-LJO -LJO Document 12 Filed 06/13/07 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

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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth th

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 April 12, 2007, requiring

plaintiff to file an amended complaint, expressly stated: “If

plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with

this order, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed,

with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to

state a claim.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that

dismissal would result from non-compliance with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED, with prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to obey the

court’s order of April 12, 2007, and for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 

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

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

Case 1:06-cv-01566-LJO -LJO Document 12 Filed 06/13/07 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

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, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01566-LJO -LJO Document 12 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 4