(PC) Candelario v. Ramirez, No. 1:2009cv00364 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 1 Action be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim and Failure to Obey a Court Order; Fifteen Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/20/2009. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 9/8/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Candelario v. Ramirez Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTONIO CANDELARIO, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00364 OWW DLB PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER Defendant. (Doc. 9) v. M. RAMIREZ, 14 FIFTEEN DAY DEADLINE / 15 16 Plaintiff Antonio Candelario (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 22, 2009, the Court 18 dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted and 19 ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of the 20 order. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 21 otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 23 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 24 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to 25 control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 26 appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 27 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 28 action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 2 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 3 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 4 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 5 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 6 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 7 failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 8 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 9 order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s 10 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 11 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 12 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 13 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 14 In the instant case, the court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 15 litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case has 16 been pending since March 3, 2009. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs 17 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 18 in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth 19 factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the 20 factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure 21 to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 22 requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d 23 at 1424. The court’s order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint expressly stated: “If 24 Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court may dismiss this action, with prejudice, for 25 failure to state a claim and/or failure to obey a court order.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning 26 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the court’s order. 27 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, 28 for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2 1 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) 3 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a August 20, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.
