Unpublished Disposition, 859 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseJimmie FRANKLIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 87-5975.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 24, 1988.Decided Sept. 21, 1988.
Before NELSON, NOONAN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Jimmie Franklin, Jr. appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his action against the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The judgment is affirmed. The district court properly dismissed Franklin's action for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The district court could reasonably have concluded that Franklin's failure to respond to the court's repeated and detailed requests for an amended complaint rendered its docket unmanageable and was thus unreasonable. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
Furthermore, the district court repeatedly notified Franklin of the deficiencies in his complaint, advised him as to how they could be cured, warned him of the impending dismissal, and gave him an opportunity to amend his complaint. Although the district court did not explicitly consider alternatives to dismissal, the court's warning to Franklin that his action would be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint satisfied the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. See Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4. Franklin's request for oral argument, dated June 6, 1988, is therefore denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
