Gaines v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:2013cv01876 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/13/2014. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIM JOHN GAINES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01876 - AWI - JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS 16 Tim John Gaines (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983, which he initiated by filing a complaint on November 19, 2013. (Doc. 1). Because 19 Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court 20 recommends the action be DISMISSED. 21 I. 22 Relevant Procedural History Plaintiff initiated this action, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) Accordingly, the 23 Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 6.) The Court determined 24 Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on 25 December 17, 2013. (Id. at 6.) In addition, the Court advised Plaintiff that “the action may be 26 dismissed for failure to comply with th[e] Order.” (Id. at 6, emphasis in original) (citing Ferdik v. 27 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). However, Plaintiff failed to file an amended 28 complaint. 1 1 The Court issued an order to show cause on January 23, 2014, granting Plaintiff another 2 opportunity to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s prior order. (Doc. 7.) Again, 3 Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of the 4 action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Id. at 2.) Therefore, 5 Plaintiff was directed file an amended complaint within fourteen days of the date of service, or no later 6 than February 6, 2014. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the 7 Court’s order to show cause. 8 II. Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court’s Orders The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 9 10 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 11 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent 12 power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 13 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 14 1986). A court may dismiss an action based upon a party’s failure to obey a court order, failure to 15 prosecute an action, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 16 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 17 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order). 18 III. 19 Discussion and Analysis To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court 20 order, or failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Court must consider several factors, including: 21 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 22 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases 23 on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see 24 also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831. 25 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 26 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to the 27 defendant also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence 28 of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 2 1 Cir. 1976). Notably, the Court determined Plaintiff had not stated a cognizable claim against the 2 defendants in the action. In the Order to Show Cause, the Court warned that it “may dismiss an action with prejudice, 3 4 based upon a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order . . .” (Doc. 7 at 2). 5 The Court’s warnings to Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint would result in 6 dismissal satisfy the requirement that the Court consider less drastic measures. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 7 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result 8 from noncompliance with the Court’s orders, and his failure to prosecute the action. Given these facts, 9 the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of 10 dismissal. 11 IV. 12 13 14 15 Findings and Recommendations Plaintiffs failed to prosecute this action by filing an amended complaint. Further, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Orders dated December 17, 2013 and January 23, 2014. (Docs. 6, 7). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: This action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 16 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 18 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days 19 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiffs may file written objections 20 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 21 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 22 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 13, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.