Wilson v. Tucci et al.

Filing 31

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 9/19/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due 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

DAVID W. WILSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-CV-2404-KJM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NICOLE M. TUCCI, 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 14, 2018, the court directed plaintiff to pay the filing fees within 14

19

days. See Doc. 29 (August 14, 2018, District Judge order). Plaintiff was warned that failure to

20

comply would result in dismissal of the action. See id. To date, plaintiff has not complied.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

1992).

6
7
8
9

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing
fee as directed by the District Judge, 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.

10

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17

Dated: September 19, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2