(PC) Hood v. Mims et al, No. 1:2013cv00108 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS That This Action Be Dismissed For Failure To Prosecute And Failure To Obey A Court Order, Objections Due In Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/18/2014. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 7/21/2014.(Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 Case No.1:13 cv 00108 LJO GSA PC ALBERT LEE HOOD, 11 Plaintiff, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER vs. 13 MARGARET MIMS, AL., 14 Defendant 15 OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 8, 2014, an order was entered, directing Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on claims found to be cognizable. 22 Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that his failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure 23 to obey a court order. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the May 8, 2014, order. 24 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local 25 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and 26 27 28 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, 1 1 2 3 where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 f.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 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. 7 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 8 apprised of address(; Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal 9 for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 10 11 1986)(dismissal for 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 12 court 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 Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 19 and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, 20 risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury 21 arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 22 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition of cases 23 on the merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 24 Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in 25 dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 26 Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for 28 2 1 2 3 4 Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 5 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 7 specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 8 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1988). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 9 right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 /s/ Gary S. Austin 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 June 18, 2014
]]>
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.
