Magee v. Flores et al

Filing 28

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and Obey a Court Order; Objections Due within Fourteen Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/20/2012. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 9/7/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

1:11-cv-01239-AWI-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM AND OBEY A COURT ORDER

13
v.
14

(ECF No. 27)
15

PETER FLORES, et al.,
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

16
Defendants.
17
/
18

Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
19
in forma pauperis in this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
On July 16, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to
21
file an amended complaint by July 30, 2012. (ECF No. 27.) In the alternative, Plaintiff
22
was to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court
23
order and failure to state a claim. (Id.) July 30, 2012, has passed without Plaintiff
24
complying with or otherwise responding to the Court’s Order.
25
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
26
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
27
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
28

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,

5

or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th

6

Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

7

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

8

amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

9

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

10

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

11

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

12

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local

13

rules).

14

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

15

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors:

16

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to

17

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

18

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.

19

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

20

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

21

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

22

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

23

dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of

24

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay

25

in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The

26

fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly

27
28

-2-

1

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s

2

warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies

3

the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;

4

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Order expressly

5

stated: “Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.” (Order, ECF

6

No. 27.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

7

noncompliance with the Court’s Order.

8

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

9

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure

10

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 and failure to obey the

11

Court’s July 16, 2012, Order (ECF No. 27). The Court also RECOMMENDS that this

12

dismissal be subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva

13

v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-1099 (9th Cir. 2011).

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

15

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

16

Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any

17

party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

18

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

19

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days

20

after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

21

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

22

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

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

ci4d6

August 20, 2012

/s/

26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-