Palacios v. Fresno Superior Court et al, No. 1:2009cv00554 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/1/2009, Recommending that the Action 15 be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Follow Court Orders. Matter referred to Judge Wanger. (Objections to F&R due by 1/4/2010) (Figueroa, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Palacios v. Fresno Superior Court et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 GLORIA PALACIOS, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) 1:09cv0554 OWW DLB ) ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, ) REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION ) v. ) ) FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ) et al., ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Plaintiff Gloria Palacios (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed the instant civil rights action 18 on March 25, 2009. On October 21, 2009, as part of the Court’s Findings and Recommendation 19 regarding dismissal of certain causes of action and certain defendants, the Court granted Plaintiff 20 leave to amend her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The amended complaint was due within thirty (30) 21 days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has not 22 filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the Court. 23 24 DISCUSSION Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 25 Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent 27 power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 28 including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 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, 1440-41 6 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 7 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 court 12 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. This case 20 has been pending since March 25, 2009. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 21 weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 22 unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 23 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly 24 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a 25 party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 26 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; 27 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Findings and Recommendation stated that failure to 28 comply with the terms would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Moreover, 2 1 Plaintiff has been given numerous opportunities to amend and in each instance, she was warned 2 that failure to file an amended complaint within the specified time frame would result in a 3 recommendation that her action be dismissed. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal 4 would result from non-compliance with the Court’s order(s). 5 RECOMMENDATION 6 7 8 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s orders. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, 9 United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 10 Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District 11 of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service 15 of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 17 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 18 Cir. 1991). 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a December 1, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
