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 F. SNOW, No. CIV S-04-0443-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 28, 2004, the court dismissed plaintiff’s

complaint with leave to amend and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s May 28, 2004, order was denied on July 28,

2004. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as directed by the court and, on September 22,

2005, the court directed plaintiff to show cause within 20 days why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders and rules. Plaintiff filed

a response to the court’s order to show cause on October 14, 2005.

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

Case 2:04-cv-00443-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 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

2

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 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). 

In his response to the court’s September 22, 2005, order to show cause, plaintiff

asserts several reasons why this action should not be dismissed. First, plaintiff states that he has

never consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge. It appears from this that

plaintiff is asserting that the court’s May 28, 2004, order, signed by a Magistrate Judge,

dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend is somehow a nullity because he never

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Because not all parties have consented, plaintiff is

correct that this case would not appropriately be before a Magistrate Judge for any final order. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, the court’s May 28, 2004, order was not a final order and, as

such, it was appropriate for a Magistrate Judge to issue. 

Next, Plaintiff contends that the May 28, 2004, order did not operate as a dismissal

of the complaint because the order stated that dismissal would only be recommended upon failure

to file an amended complaint and, to date, no such recommendation has been made. This

argument follows from a misunderstanding as to the difference between dismissal of a complaint

with leave to amend, and dismissal of an entire action. The May 28, 2004, order dismissed the

complaint with leave to amend. The language plaintiff refers to was a warning to plaintiff that, if

Case 2:04-cv-00443-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 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

3

he failed to file an amended complaint, a recommendation for dismissal of the entire action would

be made. 

Next, plaintiff appears to argue that, because the District Judge has not ruled on his

motion for reconsideration of the May 28, 2004, order, dismissal is premature. Plaintiff is

incorrect. A review of the court’s docket reflects that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was

denied on July 28, 2004. Since then, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Finally, plaintiff argues that the court was substantively wrong in its May 28,

2004, dismissal order. Such an argument is not appropriate at this time because reconsideration

of the May 28, 2004, order has been denied. Plaintiff may raise these arguments on appeal from a

final judgment. 

Having considered the factors outlined above for imposition of dismissal

sanctions, the court finds that dismissal is appropriate. In particular, plaintiff has not shown good

cause for his failure to file an amended complaint as directed by the court’s May 28, 2004, order. 

The court will, therefore, now recommend that the entire action be dismissed.

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

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 ten 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 the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 20, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00443-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 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

4

Case 2:04-cv-00443-LKK -CMK Document 12 Filed 10/21/05 Page 4 of 4