Arroyo v. Tilton, et al.

Filing 65

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Action for Failure to Comply with a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 03/03/2015. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 3/17/2015.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RENE ARROYO,
10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

vs.
JAMES TILTON, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-CV-01186 AWI DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER
(TEN DAY DEADLINE)

Plaintiff Rene Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

16
17
18
19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 27, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within twenty-one (21) days of the date of

20

service of the order. Over twenty-one days have passed and Plaintiff has not responded to the

21

Court's order.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

26
27

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

28
1

1
2
3
4

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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-

5

41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to
6
7
8
9
10
11

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 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

12

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

13

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

14

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

15

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;

16
17
18

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 Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

19

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
20
21
22
23

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

24

disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal

25

discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order

26

will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v.

27

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s

28
2

1
2
3

order expressly stated: “Failure to show cause, or failure to respond to this order, will result in
dismissal of this action.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from
his noncompliance with the Court’s order.

4

RECOMMENDATION

5

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based
6
7
8
9

on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of January 27, 2015.
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)(l). Within ten (10)

10

days after date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

11

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

12

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

13

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

14

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 3, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3