Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00541/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00541-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Howard
Plaintiff
Raul Lopez
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL LOPEZ,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00541-OWW-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 

Plaintiff Steven Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 31, 2010, the Court

issued an orderstriking the original complaint filed in this action because it was unsigned. Plaintiff

was ordered to file a signed amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of the March

31, 2010 order. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and has not otherwise communicated

with the Court. Plaintiff has failed to obey the Court’s order and has not otherwise taken any action

to litigate this lawsuit.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order

of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by

statute or Rule or 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 the local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00541-OWW -SKO Document 9 Filed 05/24/10 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

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 prosecute 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 the 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. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d

at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.

In this 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. Finally, a Court’s warning to a

party that the failure to obey a Court order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of less

drastic alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1424. The Court notes that in the March 31, 2010 order, the Court explicitly warned

Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.” (Order Striking Compl. 1:21-22.)

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.

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)(1). Within thirty (30)

2

Case 1:10-cv-00541-OWW -SKO Document 9 Filed 05/24/10 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

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: May 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00541-OWW -SKO Document 9 Filed 05/24/10 Page 3 of 3