Favor v. California State Prison et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to Follow Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/4/16. Referred to Judge O'Neill; 15-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:15-cv-01009 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER
FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Brandon Alexander Favor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed this action on June

19

30, 2015.

20

On November 4, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend.

21

Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

22

the order.

23

After the time for filing an amended complaint passed, the Court issued an order to show

24

cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to follow a Court order. Plaintiff was

25

ordered to file a response, or an amended complaint, within thirty (30) days of the date of service.

26

Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file a response or otherwise

27

communicate with the Court.

28
1

1

DISCUSSION

2

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power,

3

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles

4

Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court

5

must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

6

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

7

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re

8

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal

9

quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not

10

conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation omitted).
Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order, the

11
12

Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Id. This action can

13

proceed no further without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the order at issue, and the

14

action cannot simply remain idle on the Court’s docket, unprosecuted. Id. The Court notes that

15

Plaintiff was also warned that failure to comply with the order to show cause may result in dismissal

16

of this action.

17

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

18
19

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,
for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

20

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

21

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

22

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

23

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

24

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

2

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 4, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3