Anguiano v. Fresno County Sheriff's Department

Filing 9

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS To Dismiss Action For Failure To Comply With Court Order (Fourteen Day Deadline) (Doc. 1 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/17/2015. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill;Objections to F&R due by 8/3/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANGEL ANGUIANO,
10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-CV-00634 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER
(FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE)

Plaintiff Angel Anguiano (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 5, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to pay filing fee or submit
an application to proceed in forma pauperis within forty-five (45) days. The forty-five day
period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an application or otherwise responded to the

21

Court's order. The Court notes that the order was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as
22
23
24
25

“undeliverable – not in custody.”
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

26

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have the inherent

27

power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

28

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d
1

1
2
3
4

829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party s
failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
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

5

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 14406
7
8
9

41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to
keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.
1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

10

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

11

rules).

12

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

13

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

14

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

15

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

16
17
18

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

19

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this
20
21
22
23

litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of
injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v.

24

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

25

disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal

26

discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order

27

will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v.

28
2

1

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

2

order expressly stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.”

3
4

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

5

RECOMMENDATION
6
7
8
9

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based
on Plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of May 5, 2015.
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

10

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

11

(14) days after date of service of 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 may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

15

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

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 17, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3