(PC)Robinson v. Franco et al, No. 1:2007cv01186 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2008)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be DISMISSED signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/6/2008. Motion referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii, Objections to F&R due by 3/10/2008. (Esteves, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Robinson v. Franco et al Doc. 6 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 WILLIAM O. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, 8 CV F 07 1186 AWI GSA PC vs. 9 FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION 10 11 OFFICER FRANCO, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action challenging the 14 15 conditions of his confinement. On September 5, 2007, an order was entered, finding Plaintiff ineligible to proceed in 16 17 forma pauperis in this action, an directing Plaintiff to submite the $350 filing fee within thirty 18 days. Plaintiff has not submitted the filing fee, or otherwise respond to the order of September 5, 19 2007. 20 Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 21 Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 22 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent 23 power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 24 including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 25 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 2 See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with 3 local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 4 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440- 5 41 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to 6 keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 7 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 8 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 9 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 In the instant case, the court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving 18 this litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The 19 third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 20 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 21 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy 22 favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 23 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the 24 court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. 25 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 26 2 1 2 Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to obey a court order. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 3 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1). Within 5 thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 6 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 7 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the 8 objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties 9 are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 10 the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 60kij8 February 6, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 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.
