Unpublished Disposition, 919 F.2d 147 (9th Cir. 1990)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 919 F.2d 147 (9th Cir. 1990)

Timothy WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Debbie Martin DAWES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-35186.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 27, 1990.* Decided Nov. 29, 1990.

Before WALLACE, DAVID R. THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Timothy Watts, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We review for an abuse of discretion, Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court has the power to dismiss sua sponte a case for lack of prosecution. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court is required to weigh several factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Id. at 1423. Absent specific findings by the district court to show that it considered these factors, we review the record independently to determine whether the district court abused its discretion. Id. at 1424.

An independent review of the record supports the district court's dismissal. Watts was given ample time to respond to the magistrate's order to file a narrative statement and order to show cause why dismissal would not be appropriate. Furthermore, Watts has filed at least four suits based upon the same circumstances. Each suit was dismissed because Watts failed to file a narrative report to support his claim. Thus, Watts was aware that failure to respond to the magistrate's order to file a narrative statement would result in dismissal.

Despite this knowledge and experience, Watts failed to file a narrative statement as ordered by the magistrate. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse it's discretion in dismissing this action for failure to prosecute.1 

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

In his opening brief, Watts does not address the issue of whether the district court erred is dismissing his Sec. 1983 action for failure to prosecute. Instead, Watts contends that the court erred in denying his request for appointment of counsel. Because a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) operates as an adjudication upon the merits, we need not address this contention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

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.