Salazar v. Lopez
Filing
5
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's Failure to Obey a Court Order re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/16/2015. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within twenty (20) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
VICTOR SALAZAR,
Case No.1:14 cv 01842 LJO GSA PC
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
J. LOPEZ,
14
Defendant
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE
TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
15
OBJECTIONS DUE IN TWENTY DAYS
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action . The matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 302.
On November 24, 2014, an order was entered, severing this action and directing
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that his failure to
22
comply would result in dismissal for failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff has not filed a
23
response to the November 24, 2014, order.1
24
25
26
27
28
1
On November 24, 2014, the Court served the order on Plaintiff at Kern Valley State Prison
Corcoran, where Plaintiff was formerly incarcerated. (ECF No. 2). On December 8, 2014, the order was returned
by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. Local Rule 183(b) requires Plaintiff to keep the Court informed of his
address.
1
1
2
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
3
all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power
4
to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including,
5
where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 f.2d 829, 831 (9th
6
Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
7
an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.
8
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
9
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal for failure to comply with an order
10
11
requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v.King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.
1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court
12
apprised of address(; Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal
13
for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.
14
1986)(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
15
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a
16
court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the
17
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
18
(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
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,
21
46 F.3d at 53.
22
Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation
23
and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor,
24
risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury
25
26
27
28
2
1
arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West,
2
542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases
3
on the merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.
4
Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in
5
dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
6
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
7
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for
Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order.
9
10
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within twenty
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written
12
objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
13
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections
14
within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v.
15
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1988). Failure to file objections within the specified time
16
may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
17
1991).
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated:
21
/s/ Gary S. Austin
22
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
January 16, 2015
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?