Caputi v. Fresno County Superior Court
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. re 1 Complaint filed by Imelda Caputi, referred to Judge Ishii, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/30/2011. Objections to F&R due by 12/19/2011(Kusamura, W)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
IMELDA CAPUTI,
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, )
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
CASE No.: 1:11-cv-01579-AWI-BAM
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
FOLLOW A COURT ORDER
18
19
Plaintiff Imelda Caputi (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has alleged
20
claims against Defendant Fresno County Superior Court (“Defendant”), claiming wrongful
21
termination, age discrimination and Title VII violations. On October 18, 2011, the Court dismissed
22
Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. (Doc. 6.) The Court
23
granted Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. Id. The deadline for filing the amended
24
complaint was November 17, 2011. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order.
25
26
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 110 provides that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
27
or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all
28
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.@ District courts have the inherent power to
1
1
control their dockets and Ain the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where
2
appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
3
1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an
4
action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.
5
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
6
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
7
requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)
8
(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprized of
9
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
10
comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for
11
lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an
12
action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the
13
court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
14
(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
15
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
16
alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;
17
Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.
18
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 because there is
20
no indication that the Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action. The third factor, risk of prejudice to
21
defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any
22
unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir.
23
1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly
24
outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure
25
to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives”
26
requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The
27
Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint was clear that dismissal would result
28
from non-compliance with the Court's order. (Doc. 6, 8: 8-10) (“If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
2
1
complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, this action will be dismissed
2
with prejudice for failure to state a claim.”) (emphasis in original.)
3
RECOMMENDATION
4
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for
5
6
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United
7
States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within
8
fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court.
9
Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
10
Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
11
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive
12
the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
November 30, 2011
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?