Goodmon v. Big O Tires, Inc., No. 1:2010cv00550 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/13/2010. The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to follow a court order. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 8/16/2010. (Bradley, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Goodmon v. Big O Tires, Inc. Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 MICHAEL T. GOODMON, 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 BIG O TIRES, INC., 13 14 Defendant. 15 ) 1:10cv0550 OWW DLB ) ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ) REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 Plaintiff Michael T. Goodmon (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma 17 pauperis, filed the instant action on March 30, 2010. Pursuant to this Court’s order, he filed an 18 amended complaint ion May 7, 2010. 19 On May 18, 2010, the Court again dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 20 The Court explained that this would be Plaintiff’s final opportunity to amend his complaint and 21 that if an amended complaint was not filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the 22 order, the Court would recommend that the action be dismissed. Over thirty (30) days have 23 passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise contacted the Court. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 26 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and 27 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, 2 where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 3 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 4 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. 5 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik 6 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an 7 order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 8 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 9 apprised of address); Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 11 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 12 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 13 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 14 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 15 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 16 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 17 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 18 46 F.3d at 53. 19 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 20 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case 21 has been pending since March 30, 2010, and Plaintiff has been given two opportunities to correct 22 the deficiencies in his complaint. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in 23 favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable 24 delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 25 The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly 26 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a 27 party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration 28 of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 2 1 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s May 18, 2010, order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 2 expressly stated that if he did not comply, the Court would recommend that this action be 3 dismissed. It also expressly warned Plaintiff that this was his final opportunity to amend. Thus, 4 Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the 5 Court’s order. 6 RECOMMENDATION 7 8 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for failure to follow a court order. 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. 10 Wanger, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 11 being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 12 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 13 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 15 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 3b142a July 13, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
