Sims v. Ulit et al

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Action re 1 , With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim subject to 28 USC 1915(g) re 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/26/12. Fourteen (14) Day Deadline. Referred to Judge Ishii. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

STANLEY SIMS,

12

CASE NO.

1:11-cv-00140-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Plaintiff,

13
v.
14
15
16

W. ULIT,

(ECF NO. 10)
Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
/

17
18
19
20

On January 26, 2011, Plaintiff Stanley Sims, a former state prisoner proceeding

21

pro se and in forma pauperis filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

(Compl., ECF No. 1.)

23

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

24
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
25
26

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

27
-1-

1

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon

2

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

3

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or

4
5

any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any

6

time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim upon

7

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

8
9
10

After screening, Plaintiff’s original Complaint was dismissed, but he was given
leave to amend provided he did so on or before March 6, 2012. (Order Dismiss Compl,,
ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond by the

11
12
13

March 6, 2012 deadline.
On March 21, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Case

14

Should not be Dismissed(Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 10), requiring Plaintiff to

15

respond or file an amended complaint by April 2, 2012. Plaintiff was advised that failure

16

to meet this deadline would result in the dismissal of his action. The April 2, 2012

17

deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing any response or amended complaint.

18
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
19
20

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

21

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

22

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

23

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

24

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831-32 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action

25
based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure
26
27

to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
-2-

1

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

2

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Malone v. U.S.

3

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with

4

court order).

5
6

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to

7

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several

8

factors, (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need

9

to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy

10
11

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic
alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

12
1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
13
14

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously

15

resolving litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of

16

dismissal. In these respects, the Court has a vast caseload before it and can not

17

indulge Plaintiff’s disregard of its orders and rules. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

18

the Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises

19
from delay in resolving an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir.
20
21

1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is

22

greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Given

23

Plaintiff’s non-responsiveness to the Court’s earlier orders and his pro se and in forma

24

pauperis status, “less drastic alternatives” other than those taken to date (i.e., repeated

25
26

orders to Plaintiff to comply) do not exist and the ultimate sanction of dismissal is
warranted. Malone, 833 at 132-33.

27
-3-

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state any cognizable federal claim. He has failed to

1
2

comply with the Court’s orders and rules. No lesser sanction than dismissal is

3

appropriate.

4

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED WITH

5
6

PREJUDICE by the District Judge and that dismissal count as a strike under 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1915(g). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

8

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §

9

636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and

10
11

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

12
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served
13
14

and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

15

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

16

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

17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21

Dated:

22

ci4d6

April 26, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
-4-