(PC) Bryant v. Biter et al, No. 1:2011cv01975 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of 1 Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Obey a Court Order 3 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/20/12. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections Due Within Fourteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bryant v. Biter et al Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN D. BRYANT, 1:11-cv-01975-AWI-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 13 v. 14 (ECF No. 3) 15 MARTIN D. BITER et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 Defendants. 17 / 18 Plaintiff Kevin D. Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an Order finding that Plaintiff’s motion to 21 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 should be denied because a 22 review of the prior actions filed by Plaintiff revealed that Plaintiff was subject to § 1915(g) 23 and was not under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the Complaint 24 was filed. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full by July 30, 2012. 25 (Id.) Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to pay the filing fee, his action would be 26 dismissed. (Id.) July 30, 2012, has passed without Plaintiff responding to the Court’s 27 Order. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 2 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 3 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 4 inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 5 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. 6 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 7 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 8 or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 9 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 10 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 11 amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 12 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 13 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 14 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 15 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 16 rules). 17 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 18 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 19 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 20 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 21 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 22 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 23 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 24 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously 25 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of 26 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of 27 28 -2- 1 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 2 in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The 3 fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly 4 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s 5 warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies 6 the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; 7 Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Order expressly 8 stated: “If Plaintiff fails to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days, this action 9 will be dismissed, without prejudice..” (ECF No. 3.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning 10 that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court’s Order. Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 11 12 based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order. 13 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 15 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 16 any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such 17 a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 18 Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 20 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: ci4d6 August 20, 2012 /s/ 25 26 27 28 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -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.
