Maxwell v. Mitchell et al

Filing 30

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/30/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY PAUL MAXWELL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-CV-0015-JAM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RYON MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 31, 2018, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint was

19

appropriate for service and directed plaintiff to submit documents for service by the United States

20

Marshal within 30 days. On October 11, 2018, the court granted plaintiff a 30-day extension of

21

time to submit service documents. Plaintiff was warned that failure to submit the required

22

documents may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply

23

with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not complied.

24

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal.

25

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal

26

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in

27

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of

28

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;
1

1

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

2

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate

3

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,

4

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where

5

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

6

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an

7

order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

8

1992).

9
10
11
12

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to submit service
documents as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed,
without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.

13

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

14

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

15

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

16

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

17

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

18

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19
20
21

Dated: November 30, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2