-MJS (PC) Castillo v. North Kern State Prison Officials, No. 1:2011cv00175 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/26/2011 recommending dismissal of complaint for failure to comply with a court order. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/29/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-MJS (PC) Castillo v. North Kern State Prison Officials Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER CASTILLO CASE NO. 1:11-cv-0175-MJS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 NORTH KERN STATE PRISON OFFICIALS, (ECF No. 11) 15 Defendant. 16 / 17 Plaintiff Christopher Castillo (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has not consented to Magistrate 19 Judge jurisdiction. The case has not yet been assigned to a District Judge. 20 Plaintiff has yet to file a complaint in this matter. On April 27, 2011, the Court 21 issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to 22 Comply with a Court Order, and ordered Plaintiff to file a complaint and application to 23 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $350.00 filing fee by May 18, 2011. (Order, ECF 24 No. 11.) The May 18, 2011 deadline has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or 25 otherwise responded to the Court’s Order. Plaintiff has not filed a complaint, nor has he 26 paid the $350.00 filing fee in full or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 27 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 2 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 3 inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 4 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. 5 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 6 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 7 or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 8 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 9 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 10 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 12 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 13 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 14 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 15 rules). 16 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 17 a Court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 18 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 19 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 20 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 21 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 22 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 23 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously 24 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of 25 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the Defendant, also weighs in favor of 26 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 27 in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The 28 fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly 1 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s 2 warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies 3 the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; 4 Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Order expressly 5 stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.” (Order, ECF 6 No. 11.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his 7 noncompliance with the Court’s Order. Accordingly, 8 1. 9 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office of this Court assign this matter to a District Judge at this time; and 10 3. 11 IT IS RECOMMENDED that in the event that Plaintiff does not file a 12 complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $350.00 13 filing fee within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, this matter be 14 DISMISSED by the District Judge. 15 Once this case has been assigned to a District Judge, these Findings and 16 Recommendations will be submitted to the assigned District Judge pursuant to the 17 provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served with these 18 findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and 19 serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall 21 be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 22 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 23 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: ci4d6 27 28 July 26, 2011 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
]]>
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.
