Muhammad v. California City Facility et al

Filing 17

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Assign Matter to a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Action for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey Court Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/6/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. The new case number is 1:17-cv-01469-DAD-MJS (PC). (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KIFAH MUHAMMADU AL-FUDUYI,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA CITY FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE No. 1:17-cv-01469-MJS (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE
TO ASSIGN MATTER TO A DISTRICT
JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

18

(ECF No. 14, 16)

19

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

20
21
22

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

On January 22, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, concluded it stated

24

no cognizable claims, and ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or a

25

notice of voluntary dismissal, or to notify the Court that he wished to stand on his

26

complaint as written. (ECF No. 14.) The thirty day response deadline passed without any

27

response from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause

28

why the action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court,

1

and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff did not respond and the time for doing so

2

has passed.

3

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

4

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

5

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

6

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

7

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833

24

F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

paid the filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions

7

of little use.

8

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be

9

dismissed, for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to

10

prosecute.

11
12

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District

13

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

14

fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any party

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

21

1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 6, 2018

/s/

25

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3