Townsel v. Madera County Department of Corrections

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Assign a District Judge to This Case; and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss This Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Comply With Court Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/13/16. This case has been assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng; The new case number is 1:15-cv-903-LJO-MJS. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID TOWNSEL,

12
13

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-0903-MJS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN
A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CASE; AND

v.

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS THIS ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

17

(ECF No. 4)

14
15

18

MADERA COUNTY DEP’T OF CORR.,
Defendant.

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. On February 23,
2016, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he was directed
to file an amended pleading on or before March 28, 2016. (ECF No. 4.) That date has
now passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

1

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

2

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.

3

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based

4

on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

5

local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

6

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

7

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint);

8

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

9

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

10

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply

11

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1986)

12

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

13

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

14

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several

15

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need

16

to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants, (4) the public policy

17

favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic

18

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423.

19

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation

20

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

21

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

22

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting

23

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –

24

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the

25

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser

26

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute

27

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not

28
2

1

paid the filing fees in this action and likely is unable to pay, making monetary sanctions

2

of little use.

3
4
5
6

Based on the foregoing, it is HERE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a
district judge to this case; and
It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed, without prejudice,
for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

7

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

8

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

9

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any

10

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

11

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

12

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen

13

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

14

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

15

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

16

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 13, 2016

/s/

20

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3