(PC) Watson v. Dowling, No. 1:2007cv00380 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that This Action Be DISMISSED For Plaintiff's Failure to Obey a Court Order re 1 Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/8/2009. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 11/12/2009. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Watson v. Dowling Doc. 37 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 KEN WATSON, Plaintiff, 8 9 vs. 1:07 CV 00380 AWI YNP SMS (PC) FINDING S AND RECOMMENDATION 10 11 12 13 D. SNELL, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights actin pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2009, an order was entered, denying Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and 18 granting Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff. The parties were directed to 19 file status reports within sixty days. Plaintiff has not filed a status report, or otherwise responded 20 to the Court’s order. 21 Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 22 Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 23 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent 24 power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 25 including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 2 failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 3 See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with 4 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 5 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440- 6 41 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 7 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 8 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 9 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 10 11 rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a 12 court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 13 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 14 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 15 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; 16 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 17 46 F.3d at 53. 18 In the instant case, the court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 19 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 20 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 21 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 22 Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring 23 disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal 24 discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order 25 will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. 26 2 1 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for 2 3 plaintiff's failure to obey a court order. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1). Within thirty 6 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 9 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 10 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 11 Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: icido3 October 8, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
