(PC) Luna v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Dept. et al

Filing 14

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 10/23/2024 RECOMMEDNING this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, and directing the court to close this case. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID LUNA,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 2:23-cv-01807-DAD-JDP (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

On January 16, 2024, the court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within

18

thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendants. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff

19

failed to comply with that order. Therefore, on July 10, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause

20

why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with

21

court orders. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to

22

do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is warranted.

23

The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that

24

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty.,

25

216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to

26

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

27

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”).

28
1

1

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to

2

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54

3

(9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

4

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended

5

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to

6

comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v.

7

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court

8

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

9

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

10

In recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders, I

11

have considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

12

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

13

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.”

14

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted).

15

Here, plaintiff has failed to respond to court orders directing him to provide necessary

16

service documents. See ECF Nos. 11 & 13. Therefore, the public interest in expeditious

17

resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to the

18

defendant all support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. Lastly, my warning to plaintiff that

19

failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the

20

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779

21

F.2d at 1424. The July 10, 2024 order expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to comply with

22

court orders would result in dismissal. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff had adequate warning that

23

dismissal could result from his noncompliance. Accordingly, I find that the balance of factors

24

weighs in favor of dismissal.

25

Therefore, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

26

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to

27
28

comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the July 10, 2024 order.
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
2

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

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

3

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

4

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

5

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed

6

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

7

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

8

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

9

1991).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:

October 23, 2024

13

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3