Moody v. Graves et al, No. 1:2009cv01502 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this 22 Action be Dismissed for Failure to Obey a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 06/15/2010. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 7/19/2010. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Moody v. Graves et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE LEE MOODY, 12 13 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01502-AWI-SKO Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER v. 14 OFFICER GLEN GRAVES, et al., 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS / 16 17 On April 2, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with leave to 18 amend. The order directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. On April 19 7, 2010, instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and 20 demanded a trial, apparently as to his original complaint. On April 13, 2010, the Court denied 21 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel and also denied Plaintiff's request for a trial finding that the 22 Court could not order that trial proceed until Plaintiff filed a complaint setting forth a cognizable 23 claim. The thirty (30) day period to file an amended complaint has now expired, and Plaintiff has 24 not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court's April 2, 2010, order. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 26 with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 27 within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the inherent power to control their 28 dockets and "[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 default or dismissal [of a case]." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 3 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 4 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 5 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 6 amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for 7 failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 8 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 9 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure 10 or lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 11 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 12 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 13 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 14 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 15 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 16 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 17 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 18 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 19 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 20 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air 21 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of 22 cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 23 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that the failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 24 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d 25 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 26 The Court’s April 2, 2010, order expressly stated that "[i]f Plaintiff fails to file an amended 27 complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, this action will be dismissed 28 with prejudice." Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 2 1 noncompliance with the Court’s order. 2 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to obey the Court’s order of April 2, 2010. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 6 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's 8 Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 9 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 10 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: ie14hj June 15, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
