(PC)David v. Gutierrrez et al, No. 1:2011cv00061 - Document 48 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissing Action, Without Prejudice, For Failure To Comply With A Court Order (ECF No. 47 ), Objections Due Within Fifteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/26/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 11/16/2012. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)David v. Gutierrrez et al Doc. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DAVID M. DAVID, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00061-LJO-BAM PC Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER A. GUTIERREZ, et al., (ECF No. 47) 13 Defendants. / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS 14 15 Plaintiff David M. David (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 17 3, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff’s complaint was stricken for lack of a signature. 18 In the order striking the complaint, Plaintiff was advised that his complaint must comply with 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 18, that his complaint could not exceed twenty five pages 20 in length and could not contain any legal argument. (Order 2, ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was also 21 advised that failure to comply with the order will result in this action being dismissed in its entirety. 22 (Id. at 3.) 23 On June 13, 2011, Plaintiff signed and filed the same thirty page complaint, alleging 24 unrelated incidents, that had been stricken from the record. (ECF No. 23.) On May 29, 2012, 25 Plaintiff’s complaint was stricken from the record for failing to comply with the order issued May 26 10, 2011. (ECF No. 34.) In the order striking the complaint for the second time, Plaintiff was 27 advised that his complaint must comply with the May 10, 2011 order and if he failed to file a 28 complaint that complied with the orders of the Court this action would be dismissed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 After receiving several extensions of time, Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 24, 2012. 2 (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff’s current complaint is ninety eight pages in length, includes a memorandum 3 of points and authorities, and alleges over thirty causes of action against ten Defendants. Plaintiff 4 has not only failed to file a complaint that complies with the orders of this court, but rather than 5 complying, has increased the length of the complaint by over sixty pages and included a 6 memorandum of legal authority which Plaintiff was clearly advised was not to be included in his 7 complaint. 8 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that 9 power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case].” In re 10 Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 11 (9th Cir. 1986)). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 12 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 13 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(per curiam)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 14 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 15 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 16 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised 17 of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure 18 to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal 19 for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). Local Rule 110 provides 20 that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 21 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 22 the Court.” 23 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 24 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider “several factors: (1) the public’s 25 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the [C]ourt’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 26 risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 27 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanction.” Omstead v. Dell Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 28 2010); In re Phenylpropanolamine Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir 2006); 2 1 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). 2 The “public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” 3 Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 649. In this instance, Plaintiff’s blatant failure to file a complaint that 4 complies with the order of this Court impedes the expeditious resolution of this action. Accordingly, 5 the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation weighs in favor of 6 dismissal. This case unnecessarily has consumed significant time that the Court could have devoted 7 to other cases that are on the docket. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. Further, Plaintiff has 8 demonstrated that he will not comply the order of this Court. The Court’s interest in managing the 9 docket weighs in favor of dismissal. 10 Since this action is being delayed due to Plaintiff’s wilful failure to comply with the Federal 11 Rules and the order of this Court, the risk of prejudice to Defendants weighs in favor of dismissal. 12 A presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 13 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring 14 disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal 15 discussed herein. Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the Court’s order 16 will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d 17 at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court expressly advised Plaintiff 18 on two occasions that failure to file a complaint that complied with the orders of this Court would 19 result in the action being dismissed in its entirety. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 20 dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 21 22 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. 23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) 25 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 26 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 3 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k October 26, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
