(PC) Medrano v. Kings County Jail et al, No. 1:2007cv00524 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS re Dismissal of Action signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/6/08. Motion referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 2/29/2008. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Medrano v. Kings County Jail et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID MEDRANO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 KINGS COUNTY JAIL & SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-cv-00524-LJO-DLB-P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION (Doc. 8) Plaintiff, David Medrano (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On December 13, 2007, the court issued an order requiring 21 plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies 22 identified therein within thirty (30) days from the date of service 23 of that order. 24 failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 25 Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a The thirty-day period has passed, and plaintiff has 26 party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the 27 Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 28 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the 2 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 3 appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” 4 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 5 with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 6 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 7 rules. 8 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 9 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for Thompson v. Housing Auth., A court may dismiss an action, See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 10 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 11 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for 12 failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 13 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 14 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with 15 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 16 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to 17 comply with local rules). 18 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of 19 prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply 20 with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the 21 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 22 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 23 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 24 their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic 25 alternatives. 26 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; 27 Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 28 // Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 2 1 In the instant case, the court finds that the public’s 2 interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s 3 interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. 4 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor 5 of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the 6 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 7 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 8 factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 9 merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of The The fourth 10 dismissal discussed herein. 11 that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 12 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. 13 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 14 779 F.2d at 1424. 15 expressly stated: “If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, 16 this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.” 17 Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result 18 from non-compliance with the court’s order. 19 Finally, a court’s warning to a party Ferdik The court’s order of December 13, 2007, Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be 20 DISMISSED based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of 21 December 13, 2007. 22 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United 23 States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the 24 provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 25 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 26 plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 27 document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's 28 Findings and Recommendations." Within twenty (20) days Such a Plaintiff is advised that failure 3 1 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 appeal the District Court's order. 3 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 3c0hj8 February 6, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 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.