(PC) White v. The State of California Tehachapi Correctional Institution et al, No. 1:2008cv00365 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER on Motion/Objection 11 . FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING dismissal of Action for Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to State a Claim 10 ,. OBJECTION due within Twenty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/09/09. (Gil-Garcia, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) White v. The State of California Tehachapi Correctional Institution et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BERNARD ANDREW WHITE, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. ORDER ON MOTION/OBJECTION (Doc. 11) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 13 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00365-OWW DLB PC Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 (Doc. 10) 15 / OBJECTION DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 16 17 Plaintiff Bernard Andrew White (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 15, 2008, the 19 court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted 20 and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of the 21 order. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 22 On December 31, 2008, Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “‘Objection’ The Plaintiff 23 Motion for F.R 47-162 Examination to file and Amendment Complaint”. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff’s 24 objection/motion is largely incomprehensible, although it appears that Plaintiff objects to the order 25 dismissing his complaint. Because Plaintiff was granted leave to amend, Plaintiff’s motion, to the 26 extent that Plaintiff is in fact seeking leave to amend, is disregarded. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 2 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 3 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to 4 control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 5 appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 6 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 7 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. 8 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 9 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 10 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 11 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 12 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 13 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 14 failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 15 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 16 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 17 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 18 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 19 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 20 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 21 In the instant case, the court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 22 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case has 23 been pending since March 19, 2008. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs 24 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 25 in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 26 factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the 27 factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure 28 to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 2 1 requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 2 at 1424. The court’s order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint expressly stated: “If 3 Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, 4 with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 5 would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order. 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, 7 for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 8 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 10 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 11 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 12 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 13 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 14 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a February 9, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 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.
