Mills v. Fox et al

Filing 18

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 2/4/2019 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 to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH WAYNE MILLS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-CV-0152-JAM-DMC-P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 7, 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. Plaintiff was warned that failure to submit the required documents may

21

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

22

orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not complied. While plaintiff submitted some

23

of the required documents on December 19, 2018, the submission is incomplete. Specifically,

24

despite the court’s instruction to submit two copies of his complaint, plaintiff submitted copies of

25

only portions of the complaint. To date, plaintiff has made no effort to cure his non-compliance

26

with the court’s December 7, 2018, order.

27

///

28

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

1992).
Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to submit

14
15

complete service documents as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is

16

appropriate.

17
18

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.

19

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26

Dated: February 4, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2