Herrera v. Candia

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 3/22/2018 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 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

ARMANDO HERRERA,

12

No. 2:17-CV-2265-KJM-CMK-P

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

CANDIA,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

16

/

17
18

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On November 30, 2017, the court directed plaintiff to submit either a completed

20

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or the full filing fee for this action within 30

21

days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack of

22

prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date,

23

plaintiff has failed to comply.

24

///

25

///

26

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

7

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

8

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor.

9

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

10

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

11

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

12

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

13

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to resolve the

15

fee status for this case as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///
2

1

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

2

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

3

orders.

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12
13

DATED: March 22, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3