Wallace v. Morris
Filing
17
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/19/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed for the reasons outlined in the order to show cause as well as 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
GEORGE WALLACE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
No. 2:17-cv-0428-JAM-CMK-P
JESSIE MORRIS,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant.
16
17
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. On January 12, 2018, the court directed plaintiff to show cause why this action
19
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond
20
to the order to show cause may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons outlined as well
21
as for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110.
22
To date, plaintiff has not complied.
23
The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of
24
dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.
25
U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public’s
26
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its own docket; (3)
1
1
the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
2
their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,
3
46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an
4
appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor.
5
See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is
6
appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,
7
1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to
8
comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
9
1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).
10
Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to respond to the
11
order to show cause, as well as for the reasons outlined in the order to show cause, the
12
undersigned finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
13
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
14
for the reasons outlined in the order to show cause as well as for lack of prosecution and failure
15
to comply with court rules and orders.
16
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
17
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
18
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
19
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
20
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
21
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
22
23
24
25
DATED: April 19, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?