Araujo v. Arka Behavior Service et al

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of this Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 07/28/14. Fifteen-Day Deadline. Referred to Judge O'Neill. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
DAVID S. ARAUJO, JR.,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00247-LJO-BAM

10
Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS
ACTION

11
v.
12
ARKA BEHAVIOR SERVICE, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/

16

Plaintiff David Araujo, a prisoner in the Atascadero State Hospital, proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis, filed this civil action on February 24, 2014. On June 10, 2014, this Court issued an

18

order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff

19

was ordered to serve the amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the service of the order. Well

20

over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order.

21

DISCUSSION

22

Local Rule 110 provides that “a 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 all

24

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court. District courts have the inherent power to

25

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

26

appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

27

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure

28

to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
1

1

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

2

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

3

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

4

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprized of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal

5

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

6

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and

7

failure to comply with local rules).

8

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

9

several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

10

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

11

of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53;

12

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779

13

F.2d at 1423-24.

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of

14

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

15

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because there is

16

no indication that Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

17

defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from any

18

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

19

The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by

20

the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the

21

court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik,

22

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

23

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint was clear that dismissal would result from non-compliance with

24

the Court’s order. (Doc. 5, pg. 5).

25

/././

26

/././

27

/././

28
2

RECOMMENDATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to close this
action.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within fifteen (15) days after the date of this Finding and
Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Finding and Recommendation.” The parties are 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).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 28, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3