Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00025/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00025-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tuneco Smith
Plaintiff
J. Woodford
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

TUNECO SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

J. WOODFORD, et al., )

 )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:06-cv-00025-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED(Doc. 1)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN

TWENTY (20) DAYS

Plaintiff, Tuneco Smith (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

By order filed July 23, 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 (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On July 27, 2007, the United

States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff as

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to

Sender - Out to Court. On October 31, 2007, the court re-served

plaintiff with its order of July 23, 2007. More than thirty days

have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or

otherwise responded to the court's order. 

Case 1:06-cv-00025-LJO -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/28/07 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

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 (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

Case 1:06-cv-00025-LJO -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/28/07 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

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 (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 July 23, 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 state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.” 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 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

Case 1:06-cv-00025-LJO -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/28/07 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

provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 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: December 27, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00025-LJO -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/28/07 Page 4 of 4