Moses Flores v. Wespak
Filing
6
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that This Action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With a Court Order re 3 Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/21/2017. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MOSES FLORES,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
WESPAK,
Case No. 1:17-cv-0326 AWI-BAM
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF THIS
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER
Defendant.
16
On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff Moses Flores, a Nevada state prisoner proceeding pro se,
17
18
filed suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. On
19
March 13, 2017, Plaintiff was ordered to fill out an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, or pay
20
the $400.00 filing fee, within thirty (30) days, or on or before April 13, 2017. To date, Plaintiff
21
has not filed an IFP application, or paid the filing fee as ordered.
22
DISCUSSION
23
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
24
or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
25
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to
26
control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including,
27
where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
28
1
1
1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an
2
action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.
3
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
4
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
5
requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)
6
(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of
7
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure
8
to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
9
(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether
10
to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply
11
with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious
12
resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
13
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
14
availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this
litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal because
there is no indication that Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action. The third factor, risk of
prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises
from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524
(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is
greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that
his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of
alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779
F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order was clear that dismissal would result for failure to comply with
the Court’s order. (Doc. 2).
26
27
28
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for
2
1
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order.
2
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
3
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
4
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
5
file written objections with the Court.
6
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
7
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the
8
magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
9
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
The document should be captioned “Objections to
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
April 21, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?