Miller v. Childrens Protective Services et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 09/17/18 RECOMMENDING that 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. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LION MARTIN MILLER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:16-CV-2171-JAM-DMC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EUGENE HASTINGS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. On August 1, 2018, the

17
18

court issued an order determining that service of the complaint is appropriate. That order

19

required plaintiff to submit to the United States Marshal, within 15 days of the date of service of

20

the order, a completed summons and copies of the complaint, and file a statement with the court

21

within 20 days that said documents have been submitted. Plaintiff was warned that failure to

22

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

23

court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. More than 20 days have elapsed and plaintiff has not

24

complied.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

1992).

10
11
12
13

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this
case 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.

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21

Dated: September 17, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2