Anderson v. Wasco State Prison
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION that this Action be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/29/11. Referred to Judge O'Neill. (Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
TROY ANDERSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
NO. 1:11 cv 00861 LJO GSA PC
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS
ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19
§(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff was directed to return to the Court, within thirty days, a
21
completed form regarding consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. Plaintiff has failed to
22
return the form.
23
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local
24
Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and
25
all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power
26
to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including,
27
28
where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th
1
Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
2
an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v.
3
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
4
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
5
requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.
6
1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court
7
apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal
8
for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.
9
1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
10
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a
11
court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the
12
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
13
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
14
their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;
15
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali,
16
46 F.3d at 53.
17
Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation
18
and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk
19
of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises
20
from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542
21
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on
22
their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally,
23
a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal
24
satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;
25
Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.
26
Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for
27
28
2
1
plaintiff's failure to obey a court order.
2
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
3
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1). Within thirty
4
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
5
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
6
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
7
shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised
8
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
9
Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
November 29, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
