(HC)Sanchez v. Frauenheim, No. 1:2016cv00600 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending to dismiss action for failure to follow court order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/31/2016. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 7/5/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 1:16-cv-00600 LJO MJS HC CARLOS G. SANCHEZ, 12 v. 13 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO Petitioner, DISMISS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER S. FRAUENHEIM, Respondent. 15 16 17 On April 29, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On May 3, 18 2016, the Court screened the petition and determined that Petitioner failed to sign the 19 petition as required by Local Rule 131. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner was provided twenty (20) 20 days to file a signed declaration that he personally submitted the petition, and was 21 forewarned that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of the petition. (Id.) Over 22 twenty (20) days have passed and Petitioner has not filed a response to the order. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 25 these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 26 any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the 27 inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may 28 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. 1 1 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 2 prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 3 or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 4 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 5 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) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 8 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 9 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 10 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 11 rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 12 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 13 factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need 14 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 16 alternatives. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Malone, 833 F.2d at 17 130; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24. 18 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public's interest in expeditiously 19 resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of 20 dismissal because it does not appear that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to 21 prosecute this matter. Petitioner did not file a signed petition or signed declaration to 22 attest that he personally filed the petition, despite the Court’s order to do so. 23 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal 24 because a presumption of injury arises from any unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 25 action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public 26 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in 27 favor of dismissal. Finally, a court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the court's 28 order will result in dismissal satisfies the "consideration of alternatives" requirement. 2 1 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 2 Here, the Court's order was clear that dismissal would result from non-compliance with 3 the order. (See ECF No. 7 ["[F]ailure to follow this order will result in dismissal of the 4 petition pursuant to Local Rule 110."].) 5 II. 6 7 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States 9 District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code 10 section 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party 11 may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 12 document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 13 Recommendation." The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 14 Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 15 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 16 District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 31, 2016 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.