Taylor v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Action for Failure to Comply With a Court Order (Ten Day Deadline), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/16/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
KIRELL TAYLOR,

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:13-CV-01558 AWI DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER
(TEN DAY DEADLINE)

16
17

Plaintiff Kirell Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

19
20
21

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 5, 2014, the District Court issued an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma
pauperis status and directing Plaintiff to pay filing fee in full within thirty (30) days or dismissal

22

of the action would occur. Plaintiff requested extensions of time to comply with the court order.
23
24
25
26
27
28

The last request was granted on December 12, 2014, and Plaintiff was provided an additional
thirty (30) days to comply. The thirty (30) day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not paid
the filing fee.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and
1

1
2
3
4

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have the inherent
power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions
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

5

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
6
7
8
9

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-

10

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

11

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

12

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

13

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

14

rules).

15
16
17
18

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a
court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

19

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;
20
21
22
23

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

24

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

25

factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of

26

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v.

27

Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring

28
2

1
2
3
4

disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal
discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order
will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s

5

order expressly stated that failure to pay the filing fee in full within the allotted time would result
6
7
8

in dismissal. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his
noncompliance with the Court’s order.
RECOMMENDATION

9
10
11
12

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based
on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of September 5, 2014.
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

14

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

15

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

16
17
18

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 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).

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 16, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3