(PC) Denney v. Rodo, No. 1:2012cv00373 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal Of Action For Failure To Obey A Court Order (ECF No. 8 ), Objections, If Any, Due Within Fourteen Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/19/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 11/5/2012. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAREN DENNEY, Case No. 1:12-cv-00373-LJO-DLB PC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER F. RODO, 15 ECF No. 8 Defendant. 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 19 Plaintiff Daren Denney (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 20 civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 23, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit 21 an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. As of the date of this order, 22 Plaintiff has not responded or otherwise complied. On September 14, 2012, the Court ordered 23 Plaintiff to show cause why Plaintiff has not returned a completed Consent to Assignment or 24 Request for Reassignment form. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 26 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 27 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to 28 control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 1 1 appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) 2 (per curiam). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 3 an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. 4 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 5 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 6 requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 8 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 9 comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 10 11 failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 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 public’s 13 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 14 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 15 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 16 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 17 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 18 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal The third 19 factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of 20 injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air 21 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of 22 cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 23 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 24 satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 25 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly stated: “If Plaintiff fails 26 to show cause or otherwise timely respond, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for 27 failure to obey a court order.” Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from 28 his noncompliance with the Court’s order. 2 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 2 1. 3 This action be DISMISSED for failure to obey the Court’s September 14, 2012 Order; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this action. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days 7 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 8 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 9 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 10 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 11 1991). 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: /s/ Dennis October 19, 2012 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 3b142a 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.