Baker v. German, et al.

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to Comply With a Court Order 24 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/19/17: 20-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DOMINIQUE D. BAKER,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01873-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER
[ECF No. 24]

Plaintiff Dominique Baker is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order finding Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

16
17

stated a cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendants Humberto German and Phillip

18

Holguin. The Court forwarded Plaintiff the necessary service of process forms for completion and

19

return within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not submitted the necessary

20

service of process forms or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1 The Court’s order specifically

21

stated that the failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 24.)

22

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

23

impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action.

24

County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to

25

comply with a pretrial order, the Court must weigh: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

26

of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

Bautista v. Los Angeles

27
28

1

The Court’s docket reflects that the June 14, 2017, was returned by the United States Postal Office as undeliverable.

1

1

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

2

sanctions. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th

3

Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do

4

and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226

5

(citation omitted).

6

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”

7

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks

8

omitted). Further, the Court’s need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal, as “[i]t is

9

incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of

10

litigants . . . .” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Having considered the above factors, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to submit the necessary

11
12

service documents as directed, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed, without

13
14

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.

15

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

17

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

18

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

19

Findings and Recommendations.”

20

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

21

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

July 19, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2