Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02162/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02162-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Stephen Vincent Hubbard
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN VINCENT HUBBARD, No. CIV S-09-2162-FCD-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding in pro se, brings this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2010, the court directed plaintiff to file an

amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended

complaint may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply

with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 11-110. To date, plaintiff has not complied. 

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

Case 2:09-cv-02162-FCD-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 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

2

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file an

amended complaint as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

orders. 

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)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 21, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02162-FCD-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 2