Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00870/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00870-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Defendant
Guillermo Vera
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, 

Defendant(s).

Case No. 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE 

(ECF No. 33)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing pro se a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court directed the habeas proceeding be converted

to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action and that Plaintiff proceed in forma pauperis. A 

Second Amended Complaint was filed but dismissed by the Court because it failed to state 

a claim. Plaintiff was given leave to file a third amended complaint by not later than July 28, 

2014. Plaintiff requested and was granted an extension of that deadline to September 2, 

2014. The September 2nd deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended 

pleading or seeking an extension of time to do so.

The Court then ordered Plaintiff, by not later than September 29, 2014, to show 

cause why the action should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 33.) The September 29, 2014 

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 10/27/14 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

deadline passed without Plaintiff responding further.

II. DISCUSSION

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 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, 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 (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 a complaint); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for 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 public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and 

the Court’s interest in managing its 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 

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 10/27/14 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

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this 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 outweighed here because Plaintiff has failed to 

comply with the Court’s order that he file an amended civil rights complaint. 

Notwithstanding extension of time, Plaintiff has before the Court no cognizable claim for 

relief against any named Defendant. Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at 

this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a satisfactory 

lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee 

for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions of little use.

Plaintiff was previously advised that failure to respond to the Court’s order by the 

September 29, 2014 deadline would result in a recommendation the action be dismissed 

with prejudice subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See 

ECF No. 33, 3:10-13.) 

III. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff has not shown good cause in avoidance of dismissal and has not filed an 

amended civil rights complaint as ordered. The undersigned recommends that the action 

be dismissed with prejudice, that dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g), and that the Clerk of the Court terminate any and all pending motions and close 

the case. 

The Findings and Recommendation will be 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 

fourteen (14) days after being served with the Findings and Recommendation, the parties 

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections 

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond to another 

party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being served with a 

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 10/27/14 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

copy of that party’s 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: October 24, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS Document 34 Filed 10/27/14 Page 4 of 4