Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01301/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01301-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pam Ahlin
Defendant
Earl Simpson
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

EARL SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01301-DAD-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE 

TO OBEY COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 6, 7)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Earl Simpson (“Plaintiff”) is a state civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on August 

20, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On September 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with 

leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was expressly warned that the 

failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order would result in this 

action being dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a 

claim. (Id. at pp. 5-6.)

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and did not comply with or otherwise 

respond to the Court’s order. Accordingly, on October 27, 2016, the Court issued an order for 

Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty (20) days of service, why this action should not be 

Case 1:15-cv-01301-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/02/16 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

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s September 16, 2016 order, 

failure to state a claim, and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 7.)

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause was due on or before November 21, 2016. 

However, as of the date of this order, Plaintiff has neither complied with the Court’s orders, nor 

otherwise communicated with the Court regarding his amended complaint.

II. Discussion

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” 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 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 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

In determining whether to dismiss an action, 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 sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, the action has been pending for over a year, and Plaintiff’s amended complaint is 

overdue. Despite multiple attempts to communicate with Plaintiff, he has been non-responsive to 

the Court’s orders. The Court cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his 

case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 

Case 1:15-cv-01301-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/02/16 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

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 

dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 

639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility 

it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 

direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Finally, the court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 at 132-133; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s September 16, 2016 order 

expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that order would result in a 

recommendation of dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to obey 

a court order. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff also was warned of the potential for dismissal by the Court’s 

October 27, 2016 order to show cause. (ECF No. 7). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 

dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 

Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court which 

would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 

unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this 

action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is 

likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case.

III. Conclusions and Recommendations

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS the following:

1. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)(1);

2. This action be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s September 16, 2016 order 

(ECF No. 6) and October 27, 2016 order (ECF No. 7); and

3. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

Case 1:15-cv-01301-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/02/16 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

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

objections with the Court. The 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 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01301-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 4